,     BV 

4070 

,      .W478 

D57 

1880 

Western  Theological  Seminary 


i        Discourses  Occasioned 
A'«i  by  the 

'      Inauguration  of  B.B.  Warfield 


i 


'W 


i "'% 


"^^iU^ 


BV  4070  .W478  D57  1880 

Discourses  occasioned  by  th 
inauguration  of  Benj .  B. 


^4, 


Of  Pft/,*c^ 
21  1950 


DISCOURSES 


OCCASIONED  BY   THE 


lNAUGUp0110FBEH].B.W>tiFIELD,D.D. 


TO   THE   CHAIR   OF 


New  Testament  Exegesis  and  Literature, 


I  N 


Western'  Theological  Seminary, 


DELIVERED   ON    THE   EVENING    OF 


Tuesday,   April   QOth,   1880. 


IN    THE 


JSOF^TH     f*RZ:pBYTERIAJ^     PnURCH,     cyM.LEQHENY,     f^. 


riTTSBURCrH  : 
PRiUTED  BY  Kevin  Brothers,  lir.  Liherty  Street 

1880. 


<1 


DISCOURSES 


OCCASIONED   BY   THE 


INAlIGUpiOpFBENJ.BJjlIiFlELD.D.D. 


TO    THE   CHAIR    OF 


New  Testament  Exegesis  and  Literature, 


IN 


Western  Theological  Seminary, 


DELIVERED   ON   THE   EVENING    OF 


Tuesday,   April   QOth,   1880, 


IN    THE 


j^OF(TH     pRE^BYTERI/^JM     j^HURCH,     ^LLEQHENY,     f/<. 


PITTSBURGH  : 
Printed  ry  Nevin  Brothers,  li')  Liberty  Street. 

1880. 


ORDER  OF  EXERCISES. 


j^YMN. 


fRAYER. 
By  Ri:V.  DR.  TJIOMPSOX,   Thlnl  Chnrrh,   Pillshi(r;,li. 


Statement. 

Bii  REV.  DR.  ('.  a  BEATTY,  Pre.v>/en(  of  the  Bonnl. 


j^EADING    AND    SiGNTNG    OF    THE    PLEDGE. 
By  the  Professor  Elect. 


pHARGE. 
By  REV.  DR.  ELLIOT  E.  SWIFT,  First  Church,  Allegheny. 


_^YMN, 


Inaugural   Discourse. 

By  PROF.   WARFIELD. 


P 


OXOLOGY. 


Benediction. 
By  RBV.  DR.  COOPER,  of  the  U.  P.  Samlnary. 


CHARGE 

TO 

Benjamin  B.  Wakfield,  D.  D. 

BY 

Elliot  E.  Swift,  D.  1), 

My  Dew  Brother  : — 

The  scene  which  has  just  been  witnessed,  is  one  of  the 
most  solemn  and  impressive,  on  which  an  assemblage  of  Christian 
people  can  look.  And  you,  with  all  your  conscious  insufficiency 
for  your  great  work,  have  been  the  central  figure. 

A  very  high  honor  has  been  conferred,  in  that  you  have  been 
selected,  so  early  in  life,  to  occupy  this  position.  The  Church, 
through  her  directors  of  this  institution,  is  committing  to  you  a 
very  high  and  sacred  trust,  and  you  have  just  come  under  the 
accustomed  obligation  to  be  faithful. 

This  assemblage  of  interested  people,  the  presence  of  these 
alumni,  these  reverently  standing  directors,  the  explicitness  and 
comprehensiveness  of  the  pledge,  the  breathless  stillness  of  the 
moment,  have  added  to  the  impressiveness  of  the  occasion. 

With  your  inauguration,  the  five  professorships  in  this  honored 
institution,  are  filled  with  competent  and  trusted  men. 

We  know  of  no  great  advantage  resulting  from  discussions,  as 
to  the  relative  importance  of  the  several  branches  in  our  curricu- 
lum. Each  appears  as  necessary  to  a  thorough  preparation,  as  are 
the  several  sides  which  constitute  the  figure  we  call  a  pentegon  ; 
and  in  these  later  times,  we  wonder  how  either  the  directors,  in- 
structors, or  students,  of  thirty  years  ago,  could  be  content  with 
but  three  professors. 


6  CHARGE   TO 


We  all  have  times,  however,  when  we  are  impressed  with  the 
importance  of  some  one  department.  It  may  be  that  of  Sacred 
Rhetoric.  And  we  are  ready  to  ask,  what  more  necessary  to  a 
theological  student,  than  discipline  in  the  composition  and  delivery 
of  sermons?  What  will  all  the  precious  fruits  of  three  years 
study  avail,  if  he  cannot  present  them  acceptably  and  impressively 
to  the  people  ? 

But,  anon,  we  gravitate  toward  Systematic  Theology  as  the  de- 
partment of  superlative  importance.  For,  in  an  age  like  this  what 
will  the  most  graceful  and  attractive  delivery  avail,  w'ithout  well 
arranged  and  profitable  matter  ?  Vie  can  only  compare  it  to  the 
elaborate  frame,  suspended  on  the  wall,  wdth  its  profusion  of  gilt, 
w^orthy  of  some  painting  correspondingly  elegant,  and  yet  filled 
with  an  unartistic  daub,  such  as  are  manufactured  by  dozens,  with 
river  and  mountain,  and  castle  and  cloud,  as  unfailing  elements  in 
the  scene. 

Your  professorship,  my  dear  Brother,  is  that  of  New  Testament 
Literature  and  Exegesis. 

We  hope  that,  as  directors,  we  have  some  adequate  sense  of  the 
dignity  of  the  office  of  a  theological  professor.  And  next  to  a 
sense  of  its  dignity,  we  desire  to  have  adequate  impressions  of  the 
importance  of  your  department.  And  it  may  not  be  improper  to 
state  some  of  the  grounds  on  which  our  estimate  is  based. 

1st.  The  importance  of  your  w^ork  appears  from  the  character 
of  the  God,  by  the  inspiration  of  whose  Spirit  the  Scriptures  have 
been  given. 

As  the  happy  inheritors  of  Westminster  teachings,  we  cannot  be 
sufficiently  thankful  for  that  inimitable  answer  in  our  catechism, 
"  God  is  a  Spirit,  infinite,  eternal  and  unchangeable ;  in  his  being, 
wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness  and  truth."  After  the 
test  of  more  than  two  hundred  years,  this  answer  is  accepted  by 
increasing  multitudes.  How  comprehensive  and  yet  how  concise  ! 
What  depths  of  unfathomed  mystery  in  each  of  its  terms !  What 
better  prescription  for  divesting  a  man  of  his  pride,  and  reducing 


BENJAMIN    B.    WARFIELD,    D.    D. 


him  to  the  minutest  point  of  conscious  insignificance,  than  to  bid 
him  take  that  answer  and  meditate  upon  its  attributes  consecu- 
tively, devoting  but  a  year  to  each. 

God  is  infinite.  Go  one  thousand  million  of  miles  beyond  the 
farthest  fixed  star,  and  he  is  there.  He  is  there  by  no  diffusion  of 
his  essence.  ^'  The  whole  Godhead,  in  his  one  undivided  essence, 
is  present  at  the  same  moment,  in  every   point  of  infinite  space. '^ 

God  is  eternal.  His  existence  is  without  beginning,  succession 
or  end.  His  thoughts,  emotions,  purposes  and  acts  do  not  chase 
each  other  in  the  activities  of  his  infinite  mind.  ^^  They  are  one 
and  inseparable,  without  succession  ;  the  same  forever.''  It  is  the 
glory  of  our  God  that  he  is  no  wiser,  nor  holier,  than  he  was  a 
million  of  ages  before  the  earth  was  made. 

Well  may  we  exclaim  :  "  Such  knowledge  is  too  wonderful  for 
me ;  it  is  high,  I  cannot  attain  unto  it." 

Now,  if  this  God  has  made  a  revelation  to  men  of  earlier  times 
and  other  tongues,  Avhat  nobler  office  can  be  assigned  to  any, 
than  to  become  the  interpreter  of  it?  And  the  importance 
of  the  service  is  greatly  magnified,  if  there  is  anything  in  the 
character  and  expression  of  the  revelation,  to  show  that  "the  things 
which  were  written  aforetime,  were  written  for  our  learning."  If 
it  were  condescension  in  him  to  reveal  his  will,  it  were  exhaltation 
to  us  to  be  permitted  to  become  the  expositors  of  it.  And  though 
we  come  not  to  it,  as  Daniel  did,  with  breathless  haste,  at  a  mo- 
ment of  supreme  interest,  amid  wild  excitement  and  paralyzing 
fear,  the  work  is  the  same.  It  is  to  be  the  interpreter  of  what 
God  has  written. 

Do  not  the  very  appointments  of  our  academies  and  colleges  in- 
dicate the  importance  of  this  work  ?  If  the  productions  of  poets 
and  orators,  philosophers  and  historians  of  Greece  and  Rome  have 
been  preserved  ;  if  the  text  of  each  has  been  made  the  matter  of 
critical  study  ;  if  class  books  have  been  supplied  with  notes  and 
explanations ;  if  it  be  a  proud  distinction  of  some  professors,  that 
they  are  perfectly  familiar  with  every  section  and  every  verse ;  is 


8  CHARGE   TO 


nothing  due  to  the  communication  which  the  eternal  God  has 
made?  Shall  not  the  noblest  intellect  and  the  richest  stores  of 
learning  be  consecrated  to  the  task  of  putting  in  clearest  light  be- 
fore the  minds  of  men,  the  things  that  God  hath  said? 

2d.  The  importance  of  your  work  appears  from  the  preparation 
and  discipline  which  it  aifords  for  the  great  missionary  enterprise 
of  the  church. 

There  are  few  things  which  impress  one  so  much  with  the  pro- 
gress of  the  gospel,  as  to  be  conducted  into  the  depositories  of  one 
of  our  great  national  Bible  Societies,  the  British  or  the  American, 
and  into  the  apartment  where  specimens  of  the  two  hundred  and  iifty 
languages  into  which  the  Bible  has  been  translated  are  arranged. 
And  it  might  not  be  without  some  salutary  effect  if  a  list  of  lan- 
guages into  which,  in  coming  years,  the  Scriptures  must  be  rendered, 
were  also  provided.  Thus,  in  a  new  and  curious  form,  one  might 
have  an  exhibit  of  the  work  accomplished,  and  the  work  now- 
waiting  for  competent  and  willing  hands. 

It  is  not  assumed  that  every  one  who  reads  the  Scriptures  in  the 
original  is  prepared  to  be  what  is  technically  known  as  a  transla- 
tor, nor  is  it  probable  that  every  student  of  this  Seminary  will  be 
called  to  such  a  service.  Still,  this  institution  has  never  been 
without  a  measure  of  the  missionary  spirit,  and  we  trust  it  never 
will.  And  it  is  quite  certain  that  some  who  have  sat  and  will  sit 
under  your  instructions,  will  go  to  heathen  lands.  Perhaps  it  will 
be  your  privilege,  when  you  have  attained  to  fifty  or  sixty  years, 
as  you  hear  of  this  one  and  that  who  has  accomplished  the  mag- 
nificent work  of  translating  the  Bible  into  some  new  tongue,  to  say, 
with  expanding  heart,  he  was  a  boy  of  mine.  I  taught  him  to 
see  the  force  and  beauty  of  the  Greek.  If  he  has  only  mastered 
this  new  and  unpronounceable  dialect,  as  he  did  the  old  and 
familiar  Greek,  I  will  guarantee  the  excellence  of  his  work.  Those 
hungering,  perishing  tribes  have  gotten  an  equivalent  for  every 
term  by  which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  revealed  his  mind.  And 
who  can  estimate  the  influence  of  that  translation  as  the  ages  roll  on? 


BENJAMIN   B.    WARFIELD,    D.   1).  9 


3d.  The  importance  of  your  work  will  appear  from  the  rela- 
tion which  it  sustains  to  the  department  of  Systematic  Theology. 

If  we  conceive  of  the  system  of  Christian  doctrine  as  a  stately, 
well-proportioned  structure,  then  your  share  of  the  work  in  its  up- 
building is  well  defined.  It  is  for  you  to  provide  the  material. 
The  only  source  of  supply  is  the  word  of  God.  Outside  of  this, 
you  dare  not  go.  It  is  the  quarry,  in  the  working  of  which  your 
stones  are  to  be  had.  It  is  your  mountain  of  Lebanon,  from 
whose  heights  your  timber  is  to  be  secured.  And  as  the  noble 
structure  rises,  you  will  often  find  resting  side  by  side  the  materials 
which  you  have  secured  from  different  parts  of  the  Bible.  There 
will  be  solidly  inwrought,  in  close  proximity,  statements  from  its 
prophecy  and  its  history,  from  its  gospels  and  its  epistles,  from  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  from  the  Apocalypse  of  John.  And 
each  of  these  statements  will  be  giving  its  support  to  all 
the  rest. 

It  is  sometimes  objected  to  the  teaching  of  theology  in  a  syste- 
matic form,  that  it  is  indicative  of  a  presumptuous  spirit,  and 
must  be  offensive  to  God.  It  is  intimated  that  He  can  take  no 
pleasure  in  such  books  as  our  catechism  and  confession  of  faith  ; 
that  if  God  had  desired  that  these  doctrines  should  be  so  taught, 
He  would  have  revealed  them  in  systematic  form.  It  is  said  that 
He  could  have  inserted  little  com })ends  of  doctrine  in  the  midst  of 
the  books  of  the  Bible,  making  each  exact  and  sufficient  for  the 
dispensation  of  religion  for  which  it  was  designed,  the  last  to  be 
the  most  complete,  exhaustive,  and  satisfactory  of  all. 

But  God  has  not  given  a  revelation,  say  they,  in  any  such 
form.  And  shall  men  arrogate  to  themselves  superior  wisdom  ? 
Shall  they  undertake  to  improve  upon  God's  plan?  Shall  not 
such  pretentious  efforts  be  offensive  to  Him,  especially  when 
these  books  are  elevated  to  a  position  of  superiority  to  His 
word  ? 

The  answers  to  this  objection  are  numerous  and  overwhelming. 
We  do  not  elevate  our  books  of  systematic  theology  to  the  dispar- 


10  CHARGE   TO 


agement  of  the  Word.  We  do  not  place  them  in  positions  of  co- 
ordinate importance.  The  Word  of  God  stands  alone,  in  high 
supremacy,  as  our  source  of  doctrine.  Your  own  professorship  is 
an  answer  to  all  such  mere  assertion. 

Might  not  the  same  objection  be  urged  to  any  disturbance  of 
the  original  arrangement  of  the  physical  world? 

The  hardy  pioneers,  settling  on  these  very  grounds  some 
eighty  years  ago,  found  them  in  all  their  native  wildness.  They 
were  just  as  God  had  made  them  and  the  face  of  the  natural 
world,  we  all  accept,  as  a  revelation  from  Him. 

Is  it  not  presumptuous  in  man  then,  to  project  towns,  cut  down 
trees,  grade  streets,  rear  edifices  and  prepare  parks  ? 

Is  it  not  an  ostentatious  improvement  on  God's  work,  when 
men  bridge  the  Susquehanna  and  tunnel  the  Alleghenies  and  bind 
the  eastern  and  western  portions  of  the  State  by  a  splendid  railway  ? 

We  do  not  know  why  God  made  the  Scriptures,  to  be  composed  ^ 
of  sixty-six  different  treatises,  by  forty  different  authors.     But  we 
do  know  that  you  are   in  the   line  of  duty,  even   in  the  judgment 
of  these  superficial  objectors.       You  are  taking  the  doctrines  di- 
rectly from  the  Word. 

4th.  The  importance  of  this  department  will  appear  from  the 
rich  and  abundant  material  which  it  affords  in  preaching. 

We  are  not  now  thinking  of  material,  for  the  frame  work  of  a 
discourse,  by  which  its  masses  of  beauty  and  fragrance  are  to  bo 
sustained. 

Nor  are  we  thinking  of  material  for  expository  remark,  to 
which  a  place  is  assigned,  before  announcing  the  proposition  or  pur- 
}K)se  of  the  sermon.  The  discourse  must  be  built  upon  the  text 
and  the  latter  must  sustain  the  same  relation  to  the  former,  that  a 
foundation  does  to  the  superstructure.  Expository  remarks  are 
designed  to  exhibit  the  breadth  and  security  of  the  basis.  Of 
course  the  doctrine  or  duty  must  be  gotten  from  the  Word. 

The  thought  we  wish  to  emphasize  is,  that  the  Scriptures  afford 
the  most  abundant  material  for  all  the  details  of  a  sermon.     They 


BENJAMIN   B.   WARFIELD,   D.   D.  11 


afford  the  richest  and  best  matter  for  the  amplification,  ilhistration 
and  enforcement  of  the  subject. 

Doubtless  there  may  be  faults  in  the  use  of  illustrations.  They 
may  be  too  numerous  or  too  humorous.  They  may  occupy  space 
to  the  exclusion  of  a  direct  and  adequate  statement  of  the  truth. 
They  should  be  like  the  gas-lights  in  our  cities.  They  should  be  nu- 
merous enough  to  help  the  hearer  in  pursuing  the  avenues  of  thought, 
in  which  you  are  trying  to  lead  him,  and  they  should  not  be  like  the 
ignis-fatuus,  which  engages  the  attention  and  then  diverts  the  traveler 
from  the  straight  way  and  the  solid  track.  Nothing  is  more  un- 
fortunate in  the  handling  of  the  illustration  than  to  allow  it  to 
engross  the  thought  of  the  listener  to  such  an  extent  that  he  for- 
gets the  truth  which  it  was  intended  to  impress.  The  effect  is 
quite  as  though  a  man  should  use  a  spike  for  the  purpose  of  nail- 
ing up  a  notice  on  the  highway,  and  in  the  vigor  of  his  effort  in 
driving  his  spike,  never  miss  the  hand-bill  which  his  awkwardness 
has  torn  and  the  winds  have  caught  and  carried  away. 

Some  years  ago  we  had  a  president  in  one  of  our  most  venera- 
ble collegiate  institutions  whose  earlier  studies  had  largely  been  in 
classic  literature.  Nothing  could  surpass  the  exquisite  elegance 
and  taste  with  which,  from  his  familiar  field,  he  embellished  an 
address  of  dismission  to  the  students  of  this  institution. 

But  after  all  what  source  of  illustration  like  the  Bible  itself. 

How  often  the  preacher  going  aback  of  our  common  ver- 
sion, can  see  in  the  original  a  force  and  beauty,  of  conception, 
which  the  English  does  not  express,  and,  Avithout  disparaging  our 
common  version,  he  can  proceed  to  develop,  at  length,  a  thought, 
which  no  one  word  of  our  translation  could  fully  express. 

Perhaps  the  experience  of  Albert  Barnes  will  have  value  in 
corroborating  our  position.  Some  remember  how  much  the  Chris- 
tian world  was  taken  by  surprise  when  he  announced  the  process 
by  which  his  voluminous  "  Notes  ^^  had  been  prepared.  He  had 
commenced  his  studies  early  and  had  always  laid  down  his  pen  at 
nine  o'clock  in  the  morning ;  and  after  he  h^d  iiccomplished  what 


]2  CHARGE    TO 


many  would  regard  as  a  good  day's  work,  he  commenced  the 
preparation  of  his  sermons.  But  the  point  of  special  interest  just 
now,  is  his  testimony,  that  his  studies  in  the  Scriptures,  supplied 
material  so  ample  that  this  other  service  was  reduced  to  a  minimum 
of  labor. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  and  attractive  speakers  this  institu- 
tion has  ever  had  among  its  professors,  was  in  the  department 
which  you  now  fill. 

5th.  The  importance  of  your  work  appears  from  the  peculiar 
opportunities  which  it  affords  for  promoting  the  spiritual  life  of 
candidates  for  the  ministry. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  this  Seminary  is  designed  as  a  place 
of  discipline  in  quick,  accurate,  vigorous  thought.  Its  professors 
aim  to  secure  the  largest  amount  of  study  from  the  eight  months  in 
which  students  are  with  them.  This  is  just  as  it  should  be.  The 
curriculum  is  exhaustive.  The  departments  are  in  the  hands  of 
competent  men.  The  demands  of  the  age  are  excessive.  Young 
men  may  be  actuated  by  an  ambitious  spirit,  and  time  is  rapidly 
passing. 

But,  the  jaded  condition  of  mind  and  body,  to  which  students 
may  be  reduced,  with  a  maximum  of  study,  and  a  minimum  of  ex- 
ercise in  the  open  air,  may  not  be  the  most  favorable  for  lively  de- 
votional feeling.  And  the  serious  question  in  all  our  seminaries 
has,  therefore,  been,  how  shall  the  cultivation  of  the  heart  be 
kept  in  pace  with  the  improvement  of  the  intellect  ?  How  can 
we  produce  a  class  of  men,  of  the  representative  of  whom,  the 
fathers  and  mothers  in  Israel  will  say  :  He  is  a  man  of  devout 
spirit  and  it  is  his  piety  which  gives  strength,  beauty  and  effi- 
ciency to  all  his  intellectual  stores.  Without  doubt,  he  will  be 
useful  among  us. 

A  solicitude  with  regard  to  this  matter  is  the  more  necessary, 
because  students  may  reason  thus :  My  duties  as  a  Christian  are 
completely  covered  by  the  employments  of  my  higher  character  as 
a  student  of   theology,   my  whole  thought  is  given   to   religion. 


BENJAMIN    B.    WAEFIELD,    D.    D.  13 


These  are  no  secularizing  studies.  These  are  no  writings  of 
heathen  poets  and  sages.  These  are  no  works  on  natural  or 
mental  philosophy.  We  are  busied  about  religion  by  the  month. 
We  have  no  time  for  any  thing  else,  even  if  we  had  the  taste. 

All  this  may  be  admitted.  And  yet  there  have  been  men  who 
have  passed  through  the  Seminary.  They  have  been  licensed  and 
ordained  by  discriminating  Presbyteries,  and  then  have  preached 
to  large  congregations  for  twenty  or  thirty  years,  only  to  be  cast- 
aways. 

Your  department  affords  peculiar  opportunities  for  promoting 
the  spiritual  life  of  the  students.  If  there  be  any  power  in  the 
Word,  under  the  operation  of  the  Spirit,  you  are  sure  as  you  tra- 
verse the  gospels  and  the  epistles,  to  come  upon  most  suitable  and 
suggestive  passages.  And  your  searching  remarks,  injected  in 
the  midst  of  instruction  will  not  fail  of  some  salutary  result. 

I  solemnly  charge  you,  my  dear  Brother,  ever  to  give  promi- 
nence to  the  thought,  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments are  the  Word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  I  charge  you  to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  the  plenary 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  I  charge  you  to  be  conscientiously 
honest  in  your  handling  of  the  Word,  endeavoring  to  give  the 
mind  of  the  Spirit,  nn modified  by  any  speculations  or  fancies  of 
men.  I  charge  you  to  maintain  that  sacred  enthusiasm  which  yon 
have  already  discovered  in  your  w^ork  and  to  infuse  it,  if  possible, 
into  your  classes.  I  charge  you  to  find  your  chief  reliance  in  the 
profered  help  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  great  Interpreter,  who  takes 
the  things  of  Christ  and  shows  them  unto  us.  I  charge  you  to  be 
unfalteringly  loyal  to  our  beloved  church,  venerating  her  stand- 
ards and  cherishing  a  becoming  respect  for  all  her  deliverances ; 
and,  finally,  I  charge  you  to  leave  no  opportunity  unimproved,  of 
promoting  among  the  young  men,  the  spirit  of  honest  and  unre- 
served consecration  to  the  service  of  Christ. 

We  are  not  ignorant  of  your  feeling,  as  you  assume  this  great 
responsibility.       You  are  to  mold  the  characters  of  those  who 


14  CHARGE  TO 


shall  go  out,  in  years  to  come,  to  preach  the  gospel  in  the  growing 
cities  and  the  unoccupied  wastes  of  our  own  country ;  in  Asia  and 
Africa,  and  the  islands  of  the  ocean.  Let  me  assure  you  of  the 
earnest  sympathy  of  these  directors  and  alumni.  They  feel  an 
interest  in  you,  because  your  theological  studies  and  scholarly 
habits,  have  given  promise  of  some  distinction  in  this  department  > 
because  you  have  entered  upon  your  work  so  early  in  life,  and 
because  there  flows  in  your  veins,  the  blood  of  one  of  those  majes- 
tic old  characters,  of  whose  name  the  Presbyterian  Church  will 
ever  be  proud. 

Tliough  you  have  had  no  long  experience  in  the  pastoral  work, 
it  has  perhaps  already  occurred  to  you,  that  your  present  position 
is  less  satisfying  in  one  regard.  There  is  less  to  meet  the  cravings 
of  a  social  nature.  You  are  without  the  loving  sympathies  of  a 
flock,  ever  ready  to  notice  variations  in  physical  condition,  to  make 
financial  provision  for  your  comfort,  to  express  their  appreciation 
of  your  efforts,  and  to  do  a  dozen  other  things,  which  a  devoted 
and  loyal  people  can  do. 

But  should  not  the  Presbyterian  people  of  these  cities  and  of 
the  densely  settled  country  around,  be  taught  to  take  a  deeper  in- 
terest in  this  institution.  Should  they  not  be  taught  to  remember 
it  in  their  prayers,  to  make  provision  for  it  in  their  benefactions, 
to  rejoice  in  the  popularity  of  its  professors,  and  to  glory  in  the 
acceptance  and  favor,  with  which  its  graduates  are  received.  They 
should  be  taught  that  this  institution  is  a  stronghold  of  our  Zion  ; 
a  stronghold  to  be  made  still  stronger  in  the  completeness  of  its 
financial  basis,  in  the  intellectual  vigor  of  its  teachers,  in  its  hold 
on  the  sympathies  of  the  people,  in  the  commanding  positions  of 
its  alumni  and  in  the  increasing  gracious  favor  of  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  in  whose  name  it  has  been  founded. 

Let  us  remember  the  time  for  devising  and  doing,  will  soon  be 
over.  Soon  we  shall  have  crossed  the  river,  and  have  been  lost  to 
mortal  view. 


BENJAMIN    B.    WARFIELD,    D.    D.  15 


It  is  not  yet  fiftv-two  years  since  the  first  inaugnration  was 
witnessed  in  this  institution.  Jacob  L.  Janeway  was  the  profes- 
sor. Elisha  P.  Swift  preached  the  sermon.  Matthew  Brown 
delivered  the  charge,  and  John  McMillan,  the  pioneer  in  Western 
Pennsylvania  one  hundred  years  ago,  made  the  introductory  prayer 
and  gave  the  people  the  benediction  at  its  close.  Perhaps  there  is 
no  one  here,  who  was  present  on  the  evening  of  October  16,  1828, 
in  the  First  Presbyterian  Church,  Pittsburgh.  Our  venerable 
President  of  this  Board,  was  a  member  of  it  then.  He  was  then 
in  the  freshness  and  vigor  of  his  early  ministry,  and  he  may  have 
been  present. 

But  all  other  members  have   passed  away.      Yet  their   work 
abides,  and   they   are   having  the  ecstatic  visions  of  our  exalted 

Redeemer. 

May  the  Head  of  the  Church  make  us  faitliful  in  preserving, 
strengthening  and  transmitting  this  sacred  trust. 


INAUGURAL    ADDRESS 

BY 

Prof.  Benjamin  B.  Warfieij). 

Fathers  and  Brothers : 

It  is  without  doubt  a  very  wise  provision  by  which,  in  institu- 
tions such  as  this,  an  inaugural  address  is  made  a  part  of  the  cere- 
mony of  induction  into  the  professorship.  Only  by  the  adoption 
of  some  such  method  could  it  be  possible  for  you,  as  the  guardians 
of  this  institution,  responsible  for  the  principles  here  inculcated, 
to  give  to  each  newly-called  teacher  an  opportunity  to  publicly  de- 
clare the  sense  in  which  he  accepts  your  faith  and  signs  your 
standards.  Eminently  desirable  at  all  times,  this  seems  particu- 
larly so  now,  when  a  certain  looseness  of  belief  (inevitable  parent 
of  looseness  of  practice)  seems  to  have  invaded  portions  of  the 
Church  of  Christ, — not  leaving  even  its  ministry  unaffected ; — 
when  there  may  be  some  reason  to  fear  that  "enlight- 
ened clerical  gentlemen  may  sometimes  fail  to  look  upon  sub- 
scription to  creeds  as  our  covenanting  forefathers  looked  upon  the 
act  of  putting  their  names  to  theological  documents,  and  as  mer- 
cantile gentlemen  still  look  upon  endorsement  of  bills."*  And 
how  much  more  forcibly  can  all  this  be  pled  when  he  who  appears 
before  you  at  your  call,  is  young,  untried  and  unknown.  I  wish, 
therefore,  to  declare  that  I  sign  these  standards  not  as  a  necessary 
form  which  must  be  submitted  to,  but  gladly  and  willingly  as  the 
expression  of  a  personal  and  cherished  conviction  ;  and,  further, 
that  the  system  taught  in  these  symbols  is  the  system  which  will 
be  drawn  out  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  prosecution  of  the   teaching 


*  Peter  Bayne  in  The  Puritan  Revolution, 


18  INAUGURAL    ADDRESS   OF 


to  Avhich  you  have  called  me, — not,  indeed,  because  commencing 
with  that  system  the  Scriptures  can  be  made  to  teach  it,  but  be- 
cause commencing  with  the  Scriptures  I  cannot  make  them  teach 
anything  else. 

This  much  of  personal  statement  I  have  felt  it  due  both  to  you  and 
myself  to  make  at  the  outset ;  but  having  done  with  it,  I  feel 
free  to  turn   from  all  personal  concerns. 

In  casting  about  for  a  subject  on  which  I  might  address  you, 
I  have  thought  I  could  not  do  better  than  to  take  up  one  of  our 
precious  old  doctrines,  much  attacked  of  late,  and  ask  the  simple 
question  :  What  seems  the  result  of  the  attack  ?  The  doctrine  I 
have  chosen,  is  that  of  ^'  Verbal  Inspiration/'  But  for  obvious 
reasons  I  have  been  forced  to  narrow  the  discussion  to  a  considera- 
tion of  the  inspiration  of  the  New  Testament  only;  and  that 
solely  as  assaulted  in  the  name  of  criticism.  I  wish  to  ask  your 
attention,  then,  to  a  brief  attempt  to  supply  an  answer  to  the 
question  : 

Is  THE  Church  Doctrine  of  the  Plenary  Inspiration 
OF  the  New  Testament  Endangered  by  the  Assured 
Results  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism? 

At  the  very  out-set,  that  our  inquiry  may  not  be  a  mere  beating 
of  the  air,  we  must  briefly,  indeed,  but  clearly,  state  v^^hat  we  mean 
by  the  Church  Doctrine.  For,  unhappily,  there  are  almost  as 
many  theories  of  inspiration  held  by  individuals  as  there  are  possi- 
ble stages  imaginable  between  the  .slightest  and  the  greatest  in- 
fluence God  could  exercise  on  man.  It  is  with  the  traditional 
doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  however,  that  we  are  concerned ; 
and  that  we  understand  to  be  simply  this: — Inspiration  is  that  ex- 
traordinary, supernatural  influence  {or,  jmssiveiy,  the  result  of  it,) 
exerted  by  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  ivriters  of  our  Sacred  Books,  by 
ichich  their  tcords  loere  rendered  also  the  ivords  of  God,  and,  there- 
fore, jjerfectly  infallible.  In  this  definition,  it  is  to  be  noted  :  1st. 
That  this  influence  is  a  suDernatural  one — something  different  from 


PROF.    BENJ.    B.    WARFIELD.  19 

the  inspiration  of  the  poet  or  man  of  genius.  Luke's  accuracy  is 
not  left  by  it  Avith  only  the  safeguards  which  "  the  diligent  and 
accurate  Suetonius "  had.  2d.  That  it  is  an  extraordinary  in- 
fluence— something  different  from  the  ordinary  action  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  conversion  and  sanctifying  guidance  of  believers.  Paul 
had  some  more  prevalent  safeguard  against  false-teaching  than 
Luther  or  even  the  saintly  Rutherford.  3d.  That  it  is  such  an 
influence  as  makes  the  words  written  under  its  guidance,  the  words 
of  God  ;  by  which  is  meant  to  be  affirmed  an  absolute  infalli- 
bility (as  alone  fitted  to  divine  words),  admitting  no  degrees  what- 
ever— extending  to  the  very  word,  and  to  all  the  words.  So  that 
every  part  of  Holy  Writ  is  thus  held  alike  infallibly  true  in  all  its 
statements,  of  whatever  kind. 

Fencing  around  and  explaining  this  definition,  it  is  to  be  re- 
marked further  : 

1st.  That  it  purposely  declares  nothing  as  to  the  mode  of  in- 
spiration. The  Reformed  Churchee  admit  that  this  is  inscrutable. 
They  content  themselves  with  defining  carefully  and  holding  fast 
the  effects  of  the  divine  influence,  leaving  the  mode  of  divine 
action  by  which  it  is  brought  about  draped  in  mystery. 

2d.  It  is  purposely  so  framed  as  to  distinguish  it  from  revela- 
tion ; — seeing  that  it  has  to  do  with  the  communication  of  truth 
not  its  acquirement. 

3d.  It  is  by  no  means  to  be  imagined  that  it  is  meant  to  pro- 
claim a  mechanical  theory  of  inspiration.  The  Reformed  Churches 
have  never  held  such  a  theory  -^  though  dishonest,  careless,  igno- 
rant or  over-eager  controverters  of  its  doctrine  have  often  brought 
the  charge.  Even  those  special  theologians  in  whose  teeth  such  an 
accusation  has  been  oftenest  thrown  (e.  g.,  Gaussen)  are  explicit  in 
teaching  that  the  human  element  is  never  absent.f     The  Reformed 


*  See  Dr.  C.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology,  page  157,  volume  1. 

t  Compare  Gaussen 's  Theopneusty,  "New  York,  )842;  pp.  34,  36,  44  sq  et  passim.  In 
these  passages  he  explicitly  declares  that  the  human  element  is  never  absent.  Yet  he  has 
been  constantly  misunderstood  :  thus,  Van  Ooste-zee  (Dog.  i,  p.  202),  Don  er  (Protes-ant  Theo 
ii:  477)  and  even  late  English  and  American  writers  who,  if  no  others,  should  have  found  it 
impossible  to  ascribe  a  mechanical  theory  to  a  man  who  had  abhorently  repudiated  it  in  an 


20  INAUGURAL   ADDRESS   OF 


Churches  hold,  indeed,  that  every  word  of  the  Scriptures,  without 
exception,  is  the  word  of  God ;  but,  alongside  of  that,  they  hold 
equally  explicitly  that  every  word  is  the  Avord  of  man.  And, 
therefore,  though  strong  and  uncompromising  in  resisting  the 
attribution  to  the  Scriptures  of  any  failure  in  absolute  truth  and 
infallibility,  they  are  before  all  others  in  seeking,  and  finding,  and 
gazing  on  in  loving  rapture,  the  marks  of  the  fervid  impetuosity 
of  a  Paul — the  tender  saintliness  of  a  John — the  practical  genius  of 
a  James,  in  the  writings  which  through  them  the  Holy  Ghost  has  given 
for  our  guidance.  Though  strong  and  uncompromising  in  resisting 
all  effort  to  separate  the  human  and  divine,  they  distance  all  com- 
petitors in  giving  honor  alike  to  both  by  proclaiming  in  one  breath 
that  all  is  divine  and  all  is  human.  As  Gaussen  so  well  expresses  it, 
"  We  all  hold  that  every  verse,  without  exception,  is  from  men, 
and  every  verse,  without  exception,  is  from  God ;  '^  "  every  word 
of  the  Bible  is  as  really  from  man  as  it  is  from  God." 

4th.  ^or  is  this  a  mysterious  doctrine — except,  indeed,  in  the 
sense  in  w4iich  everything  supernatural  is  mysterious.  We  are  not 
dealing  in  puzzles,  but  in  the  plainest  facts  of  spiritual  experience. 
How  close,  indeed,  is  the  analogy  here  with  all  that  we  know  of  the 
Spirit^s  action  in  other  spheres  !  Just  as  the  first  act  of  loving  faith 
by  which  the  regenerated  soul  flows  out  of  itself  to  its  Saviour,  is 
at  once  the  consciously-chosen  act  of  that  soul  and  the  direct  work  of 
the  Holy  Ghost;  so,  every  word  indited  under  the  analogous  in- 
fluence of  inspiration  was  at  one  and  the  same  time  the  consciously 

English  journal  and  In  a  note  prefixed  to  the  subsequent  English  editions  of  his  work.  (See : 
"It  is  written,"  London  :  Bagster&Sons,  3d  edition,  pp.  i-iv.)  In  that  notice  he  declares  that 
he  wishes  "loudly  to  disavow  "  this  theory,  "that  ht  feels  the  greatest  r^pugnatice  to  it,"  "that 
it  is  gratuitously  attributed  t"  him,"  "  that  he  Las  never,  for  a  single  moment,  entertained  the 
idea  of  keeping  it,"  &c.  Yet  so  late  a  writer  as  President  Bartlett,  of  Dartmouth,  (Princeton 
Review,  January,  1880,  p.  34,)  can  siill  use  Gaussen  as  an  example  of  the  mechatdcal  theory. 
Gdusstn's  book  ought  never  to  have  been  misunderstood  ;  it  is  plain  and  simple.  Tbe  cause 
of  the  constant  misunderstanding,  however,  is  doubtless  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  his  one 
object  is  to  give  a  proof  of  the  existence  of  an  everywhere  present  divine  element  in  the 
Scriptures, — not  to  give  a  rounded  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  inspiration.  He  has,  there- 
fore, dwelt  on  the  divinity,  and  only  incidentally  adverted  to  the  humanity  exhibited  in  its 
pages.  Gaussen  may  serve  us  here  as  sufficient  example  of  the  statement  in  the  text.  The 
doctrine  stated  in  the  text  is  the  doctrine  taught  by  all  the  representative  theologians  in  our 
own  church. 


PROF.    BEN.I.    B.    WARFIELD.  21 


self-chosen  word  of  the  writer  and  the  divinely-inspired  word  of 
the  Spirit.  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  it  is  through  failure  to 
note  and  assimilate  this  fact,  that  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration 
is  so  summarily  set  aside  and  so  unthinkingly  inveighed  against  by 
divines  otherwise  cautious  and  reverent.  Once  grasp  this  idea,  and 
how  impossible  is  it  to  separate  in  any  measure  the  human  and 
divine.  It  is  all  human — everv  word,  and  all  divine.  The  human 
characteristics  are  to  be  noted  and  exhibited  ;  the  divine  perfection 
and  infallibility,  no  less. 

This,  then,  is  what  we  understand  by  the  church  doctrine  : — a 
doctrine  which  claims  that  by  a  special,  supernatural,  extraordi- 
nary influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  sacred  writers  have  been 
guided  in  their  writing  in  such  a  way,  as  while  their  humanity 
was  not  superseded,  it  was  yet  so  dominated  that  their  words  be- 
came at  the  same  time  the  words  of  God,  and  thus,  in  every  case 
and  all  alike,  absolutely  infallible. 

I  do  not  purpose  now  to  undertake  the  proof  of  this  doctrine. 
I  purpose  rather  to  ask  whether,  assuming  it  to  have  been  accepted 
by  the  Church  as  apparently  the  true  one,  modern  biblical  criti- 
cism has  in  any  of  its  results  reached  conclusions  which  should 
shake  our  previously  won  confidence  in  it.  It  is  plain,  however, 
that  biblical  criticism  could  endanger  such  a  doctrine  only  by  un- 
dermining it — by  shaking  the  foundation  on  which  it  rests — in 
other  words  by  attacking  the  proof  which  is  relied  on  to  establish 
it.  We  have,  then,  so  far  to  deal  with  the  proofs  of  the  doctrine. 
It  is  evident,  now,  that  such  a  doctrine  must  rest  primarily  on  the 
claims  of  the  sacred  writers.  In  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  the 
writers  themselves  are  the  prime  witnesses  of  the  fact  and  nature 
of  their  inspiration.  Nor  does  this  argument  run  in  a  vicious  cir- 
cle. We  do  not  assume  inspiration  in  order  to  prove  inspiration. 
We  assume  only  honesty  and  sobriety.  If  a  sober  and  honest 
writer  claims  to  be  inspi'-ed  by  God,  then  here,  at  least,  is  a  phe- 
nomenon to  be  accounted  for.  It  follows,  however,  that  besides 
their  claims,  there, are  also  secondary  bases  on  which  the  doctrine  of 


22  INAUGURAL   ADDRESS   OF 


the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  rests,  and  by  the  shaking 
of  which  it  can  be  shaken.  These  are : — first,  the  allowance  of  their 
claims  by  the  contemporaries  of  the  writers, — by  those  of  their 
contemporaries,  that  is,  who  were  in  a  position  to  judge  of  the  truth 
of  such  claims.  In  the  case  of  the  New  Testament  writers  this 
means  the  contemporary  church,  who  had  the  test  of  truth  in  its 
hands  :  '^  was  God  visibly  with  the  Apostles,  and  did  he  seal  their 
claims  with  his  blessing  on  their  work?"  And,  secondly,  the  ab- 
sence of  all  contradictory  phenomena  in  or  about  the  writings 
themselves.  If  the  New  Testament  writers,  being  sober  and  hon- 
est men,  claim  verbal  inspiration,  and  this  claim  was  allowed  by  the 
contemporary  church,  and  their  writings  in  no  respect  in  their 
character  or  details  negative  it,  then  it  seems  idle  to  object  to  the 
doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  on  any  critical  grounds. 

In  order,  therefore,  to  shake  this  doctrine,  biblical  criticism 
must  show  :  either,  that  the  New  Testament  writers  do  not  claim 
inspiration  ;  or,  that  this  claim  Vv^as  rejected  by  the  contemporary 
church ;  or,  that  it  is  palpably  negatived  by  the  fact  that  the  books 
containing  it  are  forgeries ;  or,  equally  clearly  negatived  by  the  fact 
that  they  contain  along  with  the  claim  errors  of  fact  or  contradic- 
tions of  statement.  The  important  question  before  us  to-day, 
then,  is :  Has  biblical  criticism  proved  any  one  of  these 
positions  ? 

I.  Note,  then,  in  the  first  place,  that  modern  biblical  criticism 
does  not  in  any  way  weaken  the  evidence  that  the  New  Testament 
writers  claim  full,  even  verbal,  inspiration.  Quite  the  con- 
trary. The  careful  revision  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament 
and  the  application  to  it  of  scientific  principles  of  historico-gram- 
matical  exegesis,  place  this  claim  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt. 
This  is  so  clearly  the  case,  that  even  those  writers  who  cannot 
bring  themselves  to  admit  the  truth  of  the  doctrines,  yet  not  in- 
frequently begin  by  admitting  that  the  New  Testament  writers 
claim  such  an  inspiration  as  is  in  it  presupposed.  Take,  for  in- 
stance, the  twin  statements  of  Richard  Rothe:     f^To  wish  to  main- 


PEOF.    BENJ.    B.    WARFIELD.  23 


tain  the  inspiration  of  the  subject-matter,  without  that  of  the 
words,  is  a  folly  ;  for  everywhere  are  thoughts  and  words  insepar- 
able,'' and  "  It  is  clear  that  the  orthodox  theory  of  inspiration  [by 
which  he  means  the  very  strictest]  is  countenanced  by  the  authors 
of  the  New  Testament."  If  we  approach  the  study  of  the  New 
Testament  under  the  guidance  of  and  in  the  use  of  the  methods  of 
modern  biblical  science,  more  clearly  than  ever  before  is  it  seen 
that  its  authors  make  such  a  claim.  Not  only  does  our  Lord 
promise  a  supernatural  guidance  to  his  Apostles,  both  at  the  be- 
ginning of  their  ministry  (Matthew  x  :  19,  20)  and  at  the  close  of 
his  life  (Mark  xii :  11 ;  Luke  xxi :  12,  cf.  John  xiv  and  xvi)  but 
the  New  Testament  writers  distinctly  claim  divine  authority. 
With  what  assurance  do  they  sjeak — exhibiting  the  height  of 
delirium,  if  not  the  height  of  authority.  The  historians  betray 
no  shadow  of  a  doubt  as  to  the  exact  truth  of  their  every  word, — 
a  phenomenon  hard  to  parallel  elsewhere  among  accurate  and  truth- 
loving  historians  who  commoi  ly  betray  less  and  less  assurance  in 
proportion  as  they  exhibit  more  and  more  painstaking  care.  The 
didactic  writers  claim  an  absolute  authority  in  their  teaching,  and 
betray  as  little  shadow  of  doubt  as  to  the  perfectly  binding  charac- 
ter of  their  words  (2  Cor.  x  :  7,  8).  If  opposed  by  an  angel 
from  heaven,  the  angel  is  indubitably  wrong  and  accursed  (Gal.  i  : 
7,  8).  Therefore,  how  freely  they  deal  in  commands  (1  Thes.  iv  : 
2;  xi:  12.  2  Thes.  iii  :  6-14;  iv :  2);  commands,  too,  which 
they  hold  to  be  absolutely  binding  on  all ;  so  binding  that  it  is  the 
test  of  a  Spirit-led  man  to  recognize  them  as  the  commandments 
of  God  (1  Cor.  xiv  :  37),  and  no  Christian  ought  to  company 
with  tliose  who  reject  them  (2  Thes.  iii :  6-14).  Nor  is  it  doubt- 
ful that  this  authority  is  claimed  specifically  for  the  written  word. 
In  1  Cur.  xiv :  37,  it  is  specifically  ^^the  things  which  I  am  writ- 
ing "  that  must  be  recognized  as  the  commands  of  the  Lord ;  and 
so  in  2  Thes.  ii :  15;  iii:  6-14,  it  is  the  teaching  transmitted  by 
letter  as  well  as  by  word  of  mouth  that  is  to  be  immediately  and 
unquestionably  received. 


24  INAUGURAL   ADDRESS    OF 


Now,  on  what  is  this  immense  claim  of  autliority  grounded  ?  If 
a  mere  human  claim,  it  is  most  astounding  impudence.  But  that 
it  is  not  a  mere  human  claim,  is  specifically  witnessed  to.  Paul 
claims  to  be  but  the  transmitter  of  this  teaching  (2  Thes.  iii :  6  ; 
ii :  riafx))  ;  it  is,  indeed,  his  own  (2  Thes.  iii:  14,  ''il'-oyv)^  but  still, 
the  transmitted  word  is  God's  word  (1  Thes.,  ii  :  1 3).  He  speaks, 
indeed,  and  issues  commands,  but  they  are  not  his  commands,  but 
Christ's,  in  virtue  of  the  fact  that  they  are  given  through  him  by 
Christ  (1  Thes.  iv  :  2).  The  other  writers  exhibit  the  same  phe- 
nomena. Peter  distinctly  claims  that  the  Gospel  was  preached  in 
(Iv)  the  Holy  Spirit  (1  Peter,  i :  12) ;  and  John  calls  down  a  curse 
on  those  who  would  in  any  way  alter  his  writing  (Rev.  xxii :  18, 
19;  cf.  1  John,  v:  10).  These,  we  submit,  are  strange 
phenomena  if  we  are  to  judge  that  these  writers  professed  no  in- 
spiration. 

^'  But,''  we  are  asked,  '^  is  this  all  ?  "  We  answer,  that  we  have 
but  just  begun.  All  that  we  have  said  is  but  a  cushion  for  the 
specific  proof  to  rest  easily  on.  For  here  we  wish  to  make  two 
remarks : 

1.  Tlie  inspiration  'which  is  implied  in  these  jjassages,  is  diredbj 
claimed  elseiohere.  We  will  now  appeal,  however,  to  but  two  pas- 
sa2:es.  Look  at  1  Cor.  vii :  40,  where  the  best  and  most  scientific 
modern  exegesis  proves  that  Paul  claimed  for  his  ^'  opinion  "  ex- 
pressed in  this  letter  direct  divine  inspiration,  saying,  "this  is  my 
opinion,"  and  adding,  not  in  modesty,  or  doubt,  but  in  meiotic 
irony,  "  and  it  seems  to  me  that  I  have  the  Spirit  of  God."  If 
this  interpretation  be  correct,  and  with  the  "  it  seems  to  me  "  and 
the  very  emphatic  "I"  staring  us  in  the  face,  drawing  the  contrast 
so  sharply  between  Paul  and  the  irapugners  of  his  authority,  it 
seems  indubitably  so ;  then  it  is  clear  that  Paul  claims  here  a 
direct  divine  inspiration  in  the  expression  of  even  his  "  opinion  " 
in  his  letters.  Again  look  for  an  instant  at  1  Cor.  ii :  13: 
"  Which  things,  also  we  utter  not  in  words  taught  by  human  wis- 
dom, but  in  those  taught  by  the  Spirit ;    joining    spiritual    things 


PKOF.    BEN  J.    E.    WARllELD.  25 


with  spiritual  things ; "  where  modern  science,  more  clearly  even 
than  ancient  faith,  sees  it  stated  that  both  the  matter  and  the  man- 
ner of  this  teaching  are  from  the  Holy  Ghost — both  the  thoughts 
and  the  words — yes,  the  words  themselves.  ^'  It  is  not  meet/'  says  the 
Apostle,  ^'  that  the  things  taught  by  the  Holy  Ghost  should  beex- 
j)ressed  in  merely  human  words;  there  must  be  Spirit-given  words 
to  clothe  the  Spirit-given  doctrines.  Therefore,  I  utter  these 
things  not  in  the  words  taught  by  human  wisdom — not  even  in  the 
most  wisely-chosen  human  words — but  in  those  taught  by  the 
Spirit,  joining  thus  with  Spirit-given  things  (as  was  fit)  only  Spirit- 
given  words.''  It  is  impossible  to  deny  that  here  there  is  clearly 
taught  a  sttggestio  verborum.  Nor  will  it  do  to  say  that  this  does 
not  bear  on  the  point  at  issue,  seeing  that  /o;'oc  and  not  f>7jf/.a  is 
the  term  used.  Not  only  is  even  this  subterfuge  useless  in  the  face 
of  what  we  have  still  to  urge,  but  it  is  even  meaningless  here.  No 
one  supposes  that  the  mere  grammatical  forms  separately  considered 
are  inspired  :  the  claim  concerns  words  in  their  ordered  secjuence — 
in  their  living  flow  in  the  sentences — and  this  is  just  what  is  ex- 
pressed by  Xoyoc.  This  passage  thus  stands  before  us  dis- 
tinctly claiming  verbal  inspiration.  The  two  together  seem 
reconcilable  with  nothing  less  far  reaching  than  the  church 
doctrine. 

2.  But  we  must  turn  to  our  second  remark.  It  is  this  :  The 
New  Testament  writers  distinctly  place  each  other's  vritings  in  the 
same  lofty  category  in  which  they  place  the  loritings  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament ;  and  as  they  indubitably  hold  to  the  full — even  verbal — in- 
spiration of  the  Old  Testament  J  it  Jollows  that  they  claim  the  same 
verbal  inspiration  for  the  New.  Is  it  doubted  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  ascribe  full  inspiration  to  the  Old  Testament?  Mod- 
ern science  does  not  doubt  it ;  nor  can  anyone  doubt  it  who  will 
but  listen  to  the  words  of  the  New  Testament  writers  in  the  mat- 
ter. The  whole  New  Testament  is  based  on  the  divinity  of  the 
Old,  and  its  inspiration  is  assumed  on  every  page.  The  full  strength 
of  the  case,  then,  cannot  be  exhibited.     It   may  be  called  to  our 


26  INAUGUKAL    ADDRESS    OF 


remembrance^  however,  that  not  only  do  the  New  Testament 
writers  deal  with  the  Old  as  divine,  but  that  they  directly  quote  it 
as  divine.  Those, very  lofty  titles,  ^'Scripture,''  "The  Scriptures,'^ 
*^The  Oracles  of  God,"  which  they  give  it,  and  the  common  formula  of 
({uotatioD,  "It  is  WTitten,"  by  which  they  cite  its  words,  alone  im- 
ply their  full  belief  in  its  inspiration.  And  this  is  the  more 
apparent  that  it  is  evident  that  for  them  to  say,  "  Scripture  says," 
is  equivalent  to  their  saying,  "God  says,"  (Romans  ix  :  17;  x:  19; 
Galatians  iii :  8.)  Consequently,  they  distinctly  declare  that  its 
writers  wrote  in  the  Spirit  (Matthew  xxii  :  43 ;  cf.  Luke  xx  : 
42 ;  and  Acts  ii :  34) ;  the  meaning  of  which  is  made  clear  by 
their  further  statement  that  God  speaks  their  words  (Matthew  i : 
22  ;  ii :  15,  &c.),  even  those  not  ascribed  to  God  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment itself  (Acts  xiii :  35  ;  Hebrew^s  viii  :  8  ;  i :  6,  7,  8  ;  v  :  5  ; 
Eph.  iv :  8),  thereby  evincing  the  fact  that  what  the  human 
authors  speak  God  speaks  through  their  mouths  (Acts  iv :  25). 
Still  more  narrowly  defining  the  doctrine,  it  is  specifically  stated 
that  it  is  the  Koly  Ghost  who  speaks  the  written  words  of  Scrip- 
ture (Hebrews  iii :  7) — yea,  even  in  the  narrative  parts  (Hebrews 
iv  :  4).  In  direct  accordance  with  these  statements,  the  New  Tes- 
tament writers  use  the  very  words  of  the  Old  Testament  as  authori- 
tative  and  ''  not  to  be  broken."  Christ,  himself,  so  deals  with  a 
tense  in  Matthew  xxii :  32,  and  twice  elsewhere  founds  an  argu- 
ment on  the  words  (John  x  :  34  ;  Matthew  xxii  :  43)  ;  and  it  is  in 
connection  with  one  of  these  word  arguments  that  his  divine  lips 
declare  "  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  broken."  His  Apostles  follow 
his  example  (Galatians  iii :  16).  Still,  further,  we  have,  at  least, 
two  didactic  statements  in  the  New  Testament,  directly  affirming 
the  inspiration  of  the  Old  (2  Timothy  iii:  15,  and  2  Peter  i:  20). 
In  one  of  these  it  is  declared  that  every  Scripture  is  God-inspired ; 
in  the  other,  that  no  prophesy  ever  came  by  the  will  of  man,  but 
borne  along  by  the  Holy  Ghost  it  was  that  holy  men  of  God 
spoke.  It  is,  following  the  best  results  of  modern  critical  exegesis, 
therefore,  quite  certain  that  the  New  Testament   writers   held  the 


PEOF.    BEN.I.    B.   WARFIELD,  27 

full  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament.  Now,  they  plainly 
place  the  New  Testament  books  in  the  same  category.  The  same 
Paulj  who  wrote  in  2  Timothy,  "  Every  Scrij)ture  is  God-in- 
spired," (piotes  in  its  twin  letter,  1  Timothy,  a  passage  from 
Luke's  Gospel  calling  it  "Scripture"  (1  Timothy,  v:18), — nay, 
more, — paralleli>^ing  it  as  equally  Scripture  with  a  passage  from 
the  Old  Testament.  And  the  same  Peter,  who  gave  us  our  other 
didactic  statements,  and  in  the  same  letter,  does  the  same  for  Paul 
that  Paul  did  for  Luke,  and  that  even  more  broadly,  declaring  (2 
Peter,  iii :  16)  that  all  Paul's  Epistles  are  to  be  considered  as  oc- 
cupying the  same  level  as  the  rest  of  the  S(;riptures.  It  is  quite 
indisputable,  then,  that  the  New  Testament  writers  claim  full  in- 
spiration for  the  New  Testament  books. 

Now  none  of  these  points  are  weakened  in  either  meaning  or 
reference  by  the  application  of  the  principles  of  critical  exegesis. 
In  every  regard  they  are  strengthened.  We  can  be  quite  bold, 
therefore,  in  declaring  that  modern  criticism  does  not  set  aside 
the  fact  that  the  New  Testament  writers  claim  the  very  fullest 
inspiration. 

II.  We  must  ask,  then,  secondly,  if  modern  critical  investigation 
has  shown  that  this  claim  of  inspiration  was  disallowed  by  the 
contemporaries  of  the  New  Testament  writers.  Here  again  our 
answer  must  be  in  the  negative.  The  New  Testament  writings 
themselves  bristle  with  the  evidences  that  they  expected  and 
received  a  docile  hearing  ;  parties  may  have  opposed  them,  but 
only  parties.  And  again,  all  the  evidence  that  exists  coming 
down  to  us  from  the  sub-apostolic  church — be  it  more  or  less 
voluminous,  yet  such  as  it  is  admitted  to  be  by  the  various  schools 
of  criticism — points  to  a  very  complete  reception  of  the  New 
Testament  claims.  No  church  writer  of  the  tinie  can  be  pointed 
out  who  made  a  distinction  derogatory  to  the  New  Testament, 
between  it  and  the  Old  Testament,  the  Divine  authority  of  which 
latter,  it  is  admitted,  was  fully  recognized  in  the  church.  On  the 
contrary,  all  of  them  treat  the  New  Testament  with  the  greatest 


28     *  INAUGUEAL    ADDRESS    OF 


respect,  hold  its  teachings  in  the  highest  honor,  and  run  the 
statement  of  their  theology  into  its  forms  of  words  as  if  they  held 
even  the  forms  of  its  statements  authoritative.  They  all  know  the 
ditference  between  the  authority  exercised  by  the  New  Testament 
writers  and  that  which  they  can  lawfully  claim.  They  even  call 
the  New  Testament  books,  and  that,  as  is  now  pretty  weJl  admitted, 
with  the  fullest  meaning,  "Scripture.'^  Take  a  few  examples : 
No  result  of  modern  criticisui  is  more  sure  than  that  Clement 
of  Rome,  himself  a  pupil  of  Apostles,  wrote  a  letter  to  the 
Corinthians  in  the  latter  years  of  the  first  century  ;  and  that  we 
now  possess  that  letter,  its  text  witnessed  to  by  three  independent 
authorities  and  therefore  to  be  depended  on.  That  epistle  exhibits 
all  the  above-mentioned  charac^teristics,  except  that  it  does  not 
happen  to  quote  any  New  Testament  text  specifically  as  Scripture. 
It  treats  the  New  Testament  with  the  greatest  respect,  it  teaches 
for  doctrines  only  for  what  it  teaches,  it  runs  its  statements  into 
New  Testament  forms,  it  imitates  the  New  Testament  style,  it 
draws  a  broad  distinction  between  the  authority  with  which  Paul 
wrote  and  that  Avhich  it  can  claim,  it  declares  distinctly  that  Paul 
wrote  ^^  most  certainly  in  a  spirit-led  way'^  (  Ia'  olrfiz'ta::  ttvso- 
/mrrxcd;.  c.  47.)  Again,  even  the  most  sceptical  of  schools  place 
the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  in  the  first  or  at  the  very  beginning  of  the 
second  century,  and  it  again  exhibits  these  same  phenomena, — 
moreover  quoting  Matthew  definitely  as  Scripture.  One  of  the 
latest  triumphs  of  a  most  acute  criticism  has  been  the  vindication  of 
the  genuineness  of  the  seven  short  Greek  letters  of  Ignatius,  which 
are  thus  proved  to  belong  to  the  very  first  years  of  the  second  cen- 
tury and  to  be  the  production  again  of  one  who  knew  Apostles.  In 
them  again  we  meet  with  the  same  phenomena.  Ignatius  even  knows 
of  a  collected  New  Testament  equal  in  authority  to  the  Divinely 
inspired  Old  Testament.  But  we  need  not  multiply  detailed  .evi- 
dence; every  piece  of  Christian  writing  which  is  even  probably  to 
be  assigned  to  one  who  knew  or  might  have  known  the  Apostles, 
bears  like  testimony.    This  is  absolutely  without  exception.     They 


PROF.    BENJ.    B.    WARFIELI).  29 


all  treat  the  New  Testament  books  as  differentiated  from  all  other 
writings,  and  no  single  voice  can  be  adduced  as  raised  against 
them.  The  very  heretics  bear  witness  to  the  same  effect ;  anxious 
as  they  are  to  be  rid  of  the  teaching  of  these  writings  they  yet 
hold  them  authoritative  and  so  endeavor  to  twist  their  words  into 
conformity  with  their  errors.  And  if  we  follow  the  stream  further 
down  its  course,  the  evidence  becomes  more  and  more  abundant  in 
direct  proportion  to  the  increasing  abundance  of  the  literary 
remains  and  their  change  from  purely  practical  epistles  or  addresses 
to  Jews  and  heathen  to  controversial  treatises  between  Christian 
parties.  It  is  exceedingly  clear,  then,  that  modern  criticism  has 
not  proved  that  the  contemporary  church  resisted  the  assumption 
of  the  ^ew  Testament  writers  or  withstood  their  claim  to  inspira- 
tion. Directly  the  contrary.  Every  particle  of  evidence  in  the 
case  exhibits  the  apostolic  church,  not  as  disallowing,  but  as  dis- 
tinctly recognizing  the  absolute  authority  of  the  New  Testament 
writings.  In  the  brief  compass  of  the  extant  fragments  of  the 
Christian  literature  of  the  first  two  decades  of  the  second  century 
we  have  Matthew  and  Ephesians  distinctly  quoted  as  Scripture,  the 
Acts  and  Pauline  Epistles  specifically  named  as  part  of  the  Holy 
Bible,  and  the  New  Testament  consisting  of  evangelic  records  and 
apostolic  writings  clearly  made  part  of  one  sacred  collection  of 
books  with  the  Old  Testament.'^  Let  us  bear  in  mind  that  the 
belief  of  the  early  church  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  beyond  dispute,  and  we  will  see  that  the  meaning  of  all  this  is 
simply  this  :  The  apostolic  church  certainly  accepted  the  New 
Testament  books  as  inspired  by  God.  Such  are  the  results  of  criti- 
cal enquiry  into  the  opinions  on  this  subject  of  the  church  writers 
standing  next  to  the  Apostles. 

III.  If  then,  the  New  Testament  writers  clearly  claim  verbal 
inspiration  and  the  apostolic  church  plainly  allowed  that  claijn, 
any  objection  to  this  doctrine  must  proceed  by  attempting  to 
undermine  the  claim  itself.     From  a  critical   standpoint  this  can 


*  See  Barn,  4,  Poly.  12.    Test,  xii.,  Patt.  Benj.  10.    Ign.  Phil.  5,  8,  &c. 


30  INAUGUKAL   ADDRESS    OF 


be  done  only  in  two  ways  :  It  may  be  shown  that  the  books 
making  it  are  not  genuine  and  therefore  not  authentic,  in  which 
case  they  are  certainly  not  trustworthy  and  their  lofty  claims  must 
be  set  aside  as  part  of  the  impudence  of  forgery.  Or  it  may  be 
shown  that  the  books,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  fall  into  the  same  errors 
and  contain  examples  of  the  same  mistakes  which  uninspired  writ- 
ings are  guilty  of, — exhibit  the  same  phenomena  of  inaccuracy  and 
contradiction  as  they, — and  therefore,  of  course,  as  being  palpably 
fallible  by  their  very  character  disprove  their  claims  to  infalli- 
bility. It  is  in  these  two  points  that  the  main  strength  of  the 
opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  lies, — the  first  being 
urged  by  unbelievers,  who  object  to  any  doctrine  of  inspiration, 
the  second  by  believers,  who  object  to  the  doctrine  of  plenary  and 
universal  inspiration.  The  question  is  :  Has  either  point  been 
made  good  ? 

1.  In  opposition  to  the  first,  then,  we  risk  nothing  in  declar- 
ing that  modern  biblical  criticism  has  not  disproved  the  authenticity  of 
a  single  book  of  our  New  Testament.  It  is  a  most  assured  result  of 
Inblical  criticism  that  every  one  of  the  twenty-seven  books  which 
now  constitute  our  New  Testament  is  assuredly  genuine  and 
authentic.  There  is,  indeed,  mtich  that  arrogates  to  itself  the 
name  of  criticism  and  has  that  honorable  title  carelessly  accorded 
to  it,  which  does  claim  to  arrive  at  such  results  as  set  aside  the 
authenticity  of  even  the  major  part  of  the  New  Testament.  One 
school  would  save  five  books  only  from  the  universal  ruin.  To 
this,  however,  true  criticism  opposes  itself  directly,  and  boldly  pro- 
claims every  New  Testament  book  authentic.  But  thus  two 
claimants  to  the  name  of  criticism  appear,  and  the  question  arises, 
before  what  court  can  the  rival  claims  be  adjudicated  ?  Before  the 
court  of  simple  common  sense,  it  may  be  quickly  answered.  Nor 
is^t  impossible  to  settle  once  for  all  the  whole  dispute.  By  criti- 
cism is  meant  an  investigation  with  three  essential  characteristics : 
(1)  a  fearless,  honest  mental  abandonment,  apart  from  presupposi- 
tions, to  the  facts  of  the  case,  (2)  a  most  careful,  complete  and  un- 
prejudiced collection  and  examination  of  the  facts,  and  (3)  the  most 


PROF.    BENJ.    B.   WARFIELD.  31 


cautious  care  in  founded  inferences  upon  them.  The  absence  of 
auy  one  of  these  characteristics  throws  grave  doubts  on  the  results^ 
while  the  acme  of  the  uncritical  is  reached  when  in  the  place  of 
these  critical  graces  we  find  guiding  the  investigation  that  other  trio, 
— bondage  to  preconceived  opinion, — careless,  incomplete  or 
prejudiced  collection  and  examination  of  the  facts, — and  rashness 
of  inference.  Now,  it  may  well  be  asked,  is  that  true  criticism 
which  starts  Avith  the  presupposition  that  the  supernatural  is  im- 
possible, proceeds  by  a  sustained  eifort  to  do  violence  to  the  facts, 
and  ends  by  erecting  a  gigantic  historical  chimera — overturning 
all  established  history — on  the  appropriate  basis  of  airy  nothing  ? 
And,  is  not  this  a  fair  picture  of  the  negative  criticism  of  the 
day  ?  Look  at  its  history, — see  its  series  of  wild  dreams, — note 
how  each  new  school  has  to  begin  by  executing  justice  on  its 
predecessor.  So  Paulus  goes  down  before  Strauss,  Strauss  falls 
before  Baur,  and  Eaur  before  the  resistless  logic  of  his  own  nega- 
tive successors.  Take  the  grandest  of  them  all, — the  acutest  critic 
that  ever  turned  his  learning  against  the  Christian  Scriptures, 
and  it  will  require  but  little  searching  to  discover  that  Baur  has 
ruthlessly  violated  every  canon  of  genuine  criticism.  And  if  this 
is  true  of  him,  what  is  to  be  said  of  the  school  of  Kuenen  which 
now  seems  to  be  in  the  ascendant  ?  We  cannot  now  follow  theories 
like  this  into  details.  But  on  a  basis  of  a  study  of  those  details 
we  can  remark  without  fear  of  successful  contradiction  that  the 
history  of  modern  negative  criticism  is  blotted  all  over  and  every 
page  stained  black  with  the  proofs  of  work  undertaken  with  its 
conclusion  already  foregone  and  prosecuted  in  a  spirit  that  was 
blind  to  all  adverse  evidence.  *     Who  does  not  know,  for  example 


*  We  hear  much  of  "apologists  "  undertaking  critical  study  with  such  preconceived  theo- 
ries as  I  elider  the  conclusion  foregone.  Perhaps  this  is  sometimes  true,  but  it  is  not  so  necessar- 
i)v.  A  Theist,  believing  that  there  is  a  petsonal  God,  i  open  to  the  proof  as  to  whether  any 
particular  message  claiming  to  be  a  revelation  is  really  from  him  or  not,  and  according  to  the 
proof,  he  decides.  A  Pantheist  or  Mat-nalist  begins  by  denying  the  existence  of  a  personal 
God.  and  hence  the  possibility  of  the  supernatural.  If  he  begins  the  study  of  an  asserted 
revelation,  his  conclusion  is  necessarily  foregone.  An  hone^st  Theist,  thus,  is  open  to  evidence 
either  way  ;  an  honest  antheis  ■  or  Materialist  is  not  open  to  any  evi<ience  for  the  super- 
natural, f-ee  some  line  remarks  on  this  subject  by  Dr.  Westcott,  Contemporary  Review 
XXX :  p.  1070. 


32  INAUGURAL   ADDRESS   OF 

of  the  sustained  attempts  made  to  pack  the  witness  box'  against  the 
Christian  Scriptures  ? — the  wild  denials  of  evidence  the  most  nn- 
deniable, — the  wilder  dragging  into  court  of  evidence  the  most 
palpably  manufactured  ?  Who  does  not  remember  the  remarkable 
attempt  to  set  aside  the  evidence  arising  from  Barnabas'  quotation 
of  Matthew  as  Scripture,  on  the  ground  that  the  part  of  the 
epistle  which  contained  it  ^vas  extant  only  in  an  otherwise  con- 
fessedly accurate  Latin  version;  and  when  Tischendorf  dragged 
an  ancient  Greek  copy  out  of  an  Eastern  monastery  and  vindi- 
cated the  reading,  who  does  not  remember  the  astounding  efforts 
then  made  to  deny  that  the  quotation  was  from  Matthew,  or  to 
throw  doubt  on  the  early  date  of  the  epistle  itself?  Who  does 
not  know  the  disgraceful  attempt  made  to  manufacture, — yes, 
simply  to  manufacture, — evidence  against  John's  gospel,  persever- 
ed in  in  the  face  of  all  manner  of  refutation  until  it  seems  at  last 
to  have  received  its  death  blow  through  one  stroke  of  Dr.  Light- 
foot's  trenchant  pen  on  "the  silence  of  Eusebius?"  *  In  every 
way,  then,  this  criticism  evinces  itself  as  false. 

But  false  as  it  is,  its  attacks  must  be  tested  and  the  opposition 
of  true  criticism  to  its  results  exhibited.  The  attack,  then,  pro- 
ceeds on  the  double  ground  of  internal  and  external  evidence.  It 
is  claimed  that  the  books  exhibit  such  contradictions  anions  them- 
selves  and  errors  in  historical  fact,  as  evince  that  they  cannot  be 
authentic.  It  is  claimed,  moreover,  that  external  evidence  such 
as  would  prove  them  to  have  existed  in  the  Apostolic  times  is 
lacking.     How  does  true  criticism  meet  these  attacks? 

Joining  issue  first  with  the  latter  statement,  sober  criticism 
meets  it  with  a  categorical  denial.  It  exhibits  the  fact  that  every 
New  Testament  book,  except  only  the  mites  Jude,  2  and  3  John, 
Philemon  and  possibly  2  Peter,  are  quoted  b}^  the  generation  of 
writers  immediately  succeeding  the  Apostles,  and  are  thereby 
proved  to  have  existed  in  the  Apostolic^  times ;  and  that  even  these 
four  brief  books  which  are  not  quoted  by  those  earliest  authors  in 


Contemporary  Review  XXV*:  169, 


PROF.    BEN.T.    B.    WARFIET.I).  33 


the  few  and  brief  writings  wliicli  have  come  down  from  them  to 
us,  are  so  authenticated  afterwards  as  to  leave  no  rational  ground 
of  doubt  as  to  their  authenticity. 

It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  there;  is  less  evidence  for  2 
Peter  than  for  any  other  of  our  books.  If  the  early  date  of  2 
Peter  then  can  be  made  good,  the  early  date  of  all  the  rest  follows 
afortiore;  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  sober  criticism  fails 
to  find  adequate  grounds  for  rejecting  2  Peter  from  the  circle  of 
apostolic  writings.  It  is  an  outstanding  fact  that  at  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century  this  epistle  was  well  known ;  it  is  durino-  the 
early  years  of  that  century  that  we  meet  with  the  first  explicit 
mention  of  it,  and  then  it  is  quoted  in  such  a  way  as  to  exhibit 
the  facts  that  it  was  believed  to  be  Peter's  and  was  at  that  time 
most  certainly  in  the  canon.  What  has  to  be  accounted  for,  then, 
is  how  came  it  in  the  canon  of  the  early  third  century?  It  was 
certainly  not  put  there  by  those  third  century  writers;  their 
notices  utterly  forbid  this.  Then,  it  must  have  been  already  in  it  in  the 
second  century.  But  Avhen  in  that  century  did  it  acquire  this 
position?  Can  Ave  believe  that  critics  like  Irenaeus,  or  Mel i to,  or 
Dionysius  would  have  allowed  it  to  be  foisted  before  their  eyes 
into  a  collection  they  held  all-holy?  It  could  not,  then,  have  first 
attained  that  entrance  during  the  latter  years  of  the  second 
century ;  and  that  it  must  have  been  already  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, received  and  used  by  the  great  writers  of  the  fourth  quarter 
of  the  second  century,  seems  scarcely  open  to  doubt.  Apart  from 
this  reasoning,  indeed,  this  seems  established :  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria certainly  had  the  book,  Irenaeus  also  in  all  probability  pos- 
sessed it.  If,  now,  the  book  formed  a  part  of  the  canon  current 
in  the  fourth  quarter  of  the  second  century,  there  can  be  little 
doubt  but  that  it  came  from  the  bosom  of  the  Apostolic  circle. 
One  has  but  to  catch  from  Irenaeus,  for  instance,  the  grounds  on 
which  he  received  any  book  as  scripture,  to  be  convinced  of  this. 
The  one  and  all-important  sinequa-non  was  that  it  should  have 
been  handed  down  from  the  fathers,  the  pupils  of  the  Apostles,  as 


34  INAUGURAL   ADDRESS   OF 


the  work  of  the  Apostolic  circle.     And   Irenaeus  was  an  adequate 
judge  as  to  whether  this  was  the  case;  his  immediate  predecessor 
in  the  Episcopal  office  at  Lyons   was  Pothinus,  whose  long  life 
spanned  the  whole  intervening  time  from  the  Apostles,  and  his 
teacher  was  Poly  carp,  who  was  the  pupil  of  John.     That  a  book 
formed  a  part  of  the  New  Testament  of  this  period,  therefore  au- 
thenticates it  as  coming  down  from  those  elders  who  could  bear 
personal  witness  to  its  authorship.     This  is  one  of  the  facts  of 
criticism  apart  from  noting  which  it  cannot  proceed.      Tlie  ques- 
tion then,  is  not :  do  we  possess  independently  of  this,  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  the  Petrine  authorship  of  the   book  to   place  it  in  the 
canon  ?     but :  do  we  possess  sufficient  evidence  against  its  Petrine 
authorship,  to  reject  it  from  the  canon  of  the  fourth  quarter  of 
the   second   century  authenticated  as  that  canon  as  a  whole  is? 
The  answer  to  the  question  cannot  be  doubtful  when  we  remember 
that  we  have  absolutely  no  evidence  against  the  book ;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  that  all  the  evidence  of  whatever  kind  which  is  in  exis- 
tence goes  to  establish  it.     There  is  some  slight  reason  to  believe, 
for  instance,  that  Clement  of  Rome  had  the  letter,   more  that 
Hermas  had  it  and  much  that  Justin  had  it.     There  is  also  a  good 
probability  that  the  early  author  of  the  Testaments  of  the   XII. 
Patriarchs  had  and  used  it.    Any  one  of  these  references,  independ- 
ently of  all  the  rest,  would,  if  made  good,  throw  the  writing  of  the 
book  back  into  the  first  century.     Each  supports  the  others,  and 
the  sum  of  the  probabilities  raised  by  all,  is  all  in  direct  support 
of  the  inference  drawn   from  the  reception  of  the  book  by  later 
generations,  so  that  there  seems  to  be  really  no  room  for  reasonable 
doubt  but  that  the  book  rightly  retains  its  position  in   our  Kew 
Testament.     This  conclusion  gains  greatly  in  strength  when  we 
compare  the  data  on  which  it  rests,  with  what  is  deemed  sufficient 
to  authenticate  any  other  ancient  writing.     We  find  at  least  two 
most  probable  allusions  to  2  Peter  within  a  hundred  years  after  its 
composition,  and  before  the  next  century  passes  away  we  find  it  pos- 
sessed by  the  whole  church  and  that  as  a  book  with  a  secured  position 


PEOF.    BENJ.    B.    WARFIELD.  35 


in  a  collection  super-authenticated  as  a  whole.  Now,  Herodotus,  for 
instance,  is  but  once  quoted  in  the  century  which  followed  its  com- 
position, but  once  in  the  next,  not  at  all  in  the  next,  only  twice  in 
the  next,  and  not  until  the  fifth  century  after  its  composition  is  it 
as  fully  quoted  as  2  Peter  during  its  second  century.  Yet  who 
doubts  the  genuineness  of  the  histories  of  Herodotus?  Again  the 
first  distinct  quotation  from  Thucidides  do(\s  not  occur  until  quite 
two  centuries  after  its  composition  ;  while  Tacitus  is  first  cited 
nearly  a  century  after  his  death,  by  Tertulian.  Yet  no  one  can 
reasonably  doubt  the  genuineness  of  the  histories  of  either  Thu- 
cidides or  Tacitus.*  We  hazard  nothing  then,  in  declaring  that 
no  one  can  reasonably  doubt  the  authenticity  of  the  better  authen- 
ticated 2  Peter. 

If  now  such  a  conclusion  is  critically  tenable  in  the  case  of  2 
Peter,  what  is  to  be  said  of  the  rest  of  the  canon  ?  There  are 
some  six  writings  which  have  come  down  to  us,  which  were  writ- 
ten within  twenty  years  after  the  death  of  John ;  these  six  brief 
pieces  alone,  as  we  have  said,  prove  the  prior  existence  of  the 
whole  New  Testament,  with  the  exception  of  Jude,  2  and  3  John, 
Philemon  and  (possibly)  2  Peter,  and  the  writers  of  the  succeed- 
ing years  vouch  for  and  multiply  their  evidence.  In  the  face  of 
such  contemporary  testimony  as  this,  negative  criticism  cannot  pos- 
sibly deny  the  authenticity  of  our  books.  A  strenuous  effort  has 
consequently  been  made  to  break  the  force  of  this  testimony.  The 
genuineness  of  these  witnessing  documents  themselves  has  been 
attacked  or  else  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  deny  that  their  quo- 
tations are  from  the  New  Testament  books.  Neither  the  one  effort 
nor  the  other,  however,  has  been  or  can  be  successful.  And  yet 
with  what  energy  have  they  been  prosecuted!  We  have  already 
seen  what  wild  strivings  were  wasted  in  an  attempt  to  get  rid  of 
Barnabas'  quotation  of  Matthew.  That  whole  question  is  now 
given  up;  it  is  admitted  that  the  quotation  is  from  Matthew- 
and  it  is  admitted  that  Barnabas  was  written  in  the  immediate- 
ly  sub-apostolic   times.       But  Barnabas  quotes   not    only  Mat- 

*See  Kawlinson's  Hist.  Evid.,  p  376, 


36  INAUGURAL   ADDRESS   OF 


thew,  but  1  Cor.  and  Eph.,and  in  Keim's  opinion  witnesses  also  to 
the  prior  existence  of  John.  This  may  be  taken  as  a  type  of  the 
whole  controversy.  The  references  to  the  New  Testament  books 
in  the  Apostolic  fathers  are  too  plain  to  be  disputed  and  it  is  sim- 
ply the  despair  of  criticism  that  is  exhibited  by  the  invention  of 
elaborate  theories  of  accidental  coincidences  or  of  endless  series  of 
hypothetical  books  to  which  to  assign  them.  The  quotations  are 
too  numerous,  too  close,  and  glide  too  imperceptibly  and  regularly 
from  mere  adoption  of  phrases  into  accurate  citations  of  authorities, 
to  be  explained  away.  They  therefore  stand,  and  prove  that  the 
authors  of  these  writings  already  knew  the  New  Testament  books 
and  esteemed  them  authoritative. 

Nor  has  the  attempt  to  deny  the  early  date  of  these  witnessing 
writers  fared  any  better.  The  mere  necessity  of  the  attempt  is  in- 
deed fatal  to  the  theory  it  is  meant  to  support ;  if  to  exhibit  the 
unauthenticity  of  the  New  Testament  books,  we  must  hold  all 
subsequent  writings  unauthentic  too,  it  seems  plain  that  we  are  on 
a  false  path.  And  what  violence  is  done  in  the  attempt!  For 
instance,  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp  witnesses  to  the  prior  existence  of 
Matthew,  Luke,  Acts,  eleven  Epistles  of  Paul,  1  Peter  and  1 
John ;  and  as  Polycarp  was  a  pupil  ot  John,  his  testimony  is  very 
strong.  It  must  then  be  got  rid  of  at  all  hazards.  But  Irenaeus 
was  Poly  carp's  pupil,  and  Irenaeus  explicitly  cites  this  letter  and 
fl(  olares  it  to  be  Polycarp's  genuine  production ;  and  no  one  from 
iiis  lime  to  ours  has  found  cause  to  dispute  his  statement 
lu.iii  it  lias  become  necessary  to  be  rid  of  the  testimony  of  the 
Hirer  to  our  canon.  But  if  Polycarp's  letter  be  genuine,  it  sets  its 
own  date  and  witnesses  in  turn  to  the  letters  of  Ignatius,  which 
themselves  bear  internal  testimony  to  their  own  early  date  ;  and 
these  letters  of  Ignatius  testify  not  only  to  the  prior  individual  ex- 
istence of  Matthew,  John,  Romans,  1  Corinthians,  Ephesiims, 
Philippians,  1  Thessah)niaijs  and  1  John ;  but  also  to  the 
prior  existence  of  an  authoritative  Divinely-inspired  New  Test- 
ament.      This    is    but   a   specimen  of    the    linked    character  of 


PROF.    BEXJ.    B.    WARFIELD.  37 


our  testimony.  Not  only  is  it  fairly  abundant,  but 
it  is  so  connecte'l  by  evidently  undesigned,  indeed,  bnt  yet  in- 
detachable  aMiculations,  that  to  set  aside  any  one  import- 
ant piece  of  it  usually  necessitates  such  a  wholesale  attack 
on  the  literature  of  tl  e  second  century  as  to  amount  to  a 
reductio  ad  absu  cium.  We  may,  then,  boldly  formulate  as  our 
conclusion  that  external  evidence  imperiously  forbids  the  dethrone- 
ment of  any  ^ew  Testament  book  from  its  place  in  our  canon. 

What,  then,  are  we  to  do  with  the  internal  evidence  that  is  relied 
upon  by  the  negative  school?  What,  but  set  it  summarily  aside 
also?  It  amounts  to  a  two-fold  claim  :  (].)  The  sacred  writers 
are  hopelessly  inconsistent  with  one  another,  and  (2.)  they  are  at  va- 
riance with  contemporary  history.  Of  coarse,  disharmony  between 
the  four  gospels,  and  between  Acts  and  the  Epistles  is  what  is 
mainly  relied  on  under  the  first  point,  and  it  must  be  admitted 
that  much  learning  and  acuteness  has  been  expended  on  the  effort 
to  make  out  this  disharmony.  But  it  is  to  be  noted  :  (1.)  Tha* 
even  were  it  admitted  up  to  the  full  extent  claimed,  it  would  be  no 
proof  of  unauthenticity ;  it  would  be  no  more  than  that  found 
between  secular  historians  admitted  to  be  authentic,  when  narur;- 
ing  the  same  actions  from  difierent  points  of  view.  A:  d 
(2.)  in  no  case  has  it  been  shown  that  disharmony  must  be  admire  i. 
No  case  can  be  adduced  where  a  natural  mode  of  harmonizing 
cannot  be  supplied,  and  it  is  a  reasonable  principle,  recognized 
among  critics  of  secular  historians,  that  two  writers  must  not  be 
held  to  be  contradictory  where  any  natural  mode  of  harmonizing 
can  be  imagined.  Otherwise  it  amounts  to  holding  that  we  know 
fully  and  thoroughly  all  the  facts  of  the  case, — better  even  than 
eye-witnesses  seem  ever  to  know  them.  In  order  to  gain  any  force 
at  all,  therefore,  for  this  objection,  both  the  extent  and  degree  of 
the  disharmony  has  been  grossly  exaggerated.  Take  an  example  : 
It  is  asserted  that  the  two  accounts  (in  Matthew  and  Luke)  of  the 
events  accompanying   our   Lord's   birth  are    mutually  exclusive. 


38  INAUGURAL   ADDRESS   OF 


But  even  a  cursory  examination  Avill  show  that  there  is  not  a  single 
contradiction  between  them.       How  then   is  the  charge  of  dishar- 
mony supported  ?      In  two  ways  :     First,  by  erecting  silence  into 
contradiction.     Since  Matthew  does  not  mention   the  visit  of  the 
shepherds,  he  is  said   to  contradict  Luke  who  does.     Since  Luke 
does  not  mention  the  flight  into   Egypt  he  is  said  to  contradict 
Matthew   who  does.     And  secondly,  by  a  still  more  astounding 
method  which  proceeds  by  first  confounding  two  distinct  transac- 
tions and  then  finding  irreconcilable  contradictions  between  them. 
Thus  Strauss   calmly  enumerates  no  less  than  five  discrepancies 
between  Matthew's  account  of  the   visit  of  the  angel  to  Joseph 
and  Luke's  account  of  the  visit  of  the  angel  to  Mary.     On  the 
same  principle  we  might  prove  both  Motley's  ^^Dutch  Republic" 
and  Kingslake's  "  Crimean  War  "  to  be  unbelievable  histories  by 
gravely    setting   ourselves  to   find    "discrepancies"  between    the 
account  in  the  one  of  the  brilliant  charges  of  Egmont  at  St.  Quen- 
tin  and  the  account  in  the  other  of  the  great  charge  of  the  six 
hundred  at  Balaclava.     This  is  not  an  unfair  example  of  the  way 
in  which  the  New  Testament  is  dealt  with  in  order  to  exhibit  its 
internal  disharmony.      We  are  content,  however,  that  it  should 
pass  for  an  extreme  case.       For  it  will  suffice  for  our  present  pur- 
pose to  be  able  to  say  that  if  the  New  Testament  books  are  to  be 
proved  unauthentic  by  their  internal  contradictions,  by  parity  of 
reasoning  the  world  has  never  yet  seen  an  authentic  writing.      In 
fact  so  marvelously  are  our  books  at  one  that,  leaving  the  defensive, 
the  harmonist   may  take  the  offensive  and   claim   this  unwonted 
harmony  as  one  of  the  chief  evidences   of  Christianity.      Paley 
has  done  this  for  the  Acts  and  Epistles ;  and  it  can  be  done  also 
for  the  Gospels. 

Perhaps  we  ought  to  content  ourselves  with  merely  repeating 
this  same  remark  in  reference  to  the  charge  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  are  at  variance  with  contemporary  history.  So  far  is  this 
from  being  true  that  one  of  the  strongest  evidences  for  Christianity 
is  the  utter  accord  with  the  minute  details  of  contemporary  history 


PROF.    BENJ.    B.    WARFIELD.  39 


which  is  exhibited  in  its  records.  There  has  been  no  lack  indeed 
of  "  instances  '^  of  disaccord  confidently  put  forth  ;  but  in  every 
case  the  charge  has  recoiled  on  the  head  of  its  maker.  Thus,  the 
mention  of  Lysanias  in  Luke,  iii :  2,  was  long  held  the  test  case  of 
such  inaccuracy  and  sceptics  were  never  weary  of  dwelling  upon 
it;  until  it  was  pointed  out  that  the  whole  ^^  error"  was  not 
Luke's  but — the  sct-ptic's.  Josephus  mentions  this  Lysanias  and 
in  such  a  way  that  he  should  not  have  been  confounded  with  his 
older  namesake ;  and  inscriptions  have  been  brought  to  light 
which  explicitly  assign  him  to  just  Luke's  date.  And  so  this 
stock  example  vanishes  into  the  air  from  which  it  was  made.  The 
others  have  met  a  like  fate.  The  detailed  accuracv  of  the  New 
Testament  writers  in  historical  matters  is  indeed  wonderful,  and 
is  more  and  more  evinced  by  every  fresh  investigation.  Every 
now  and  then  a  monument  is  dug  up,  touching  on  some  point  ad- 
verted to  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  in  every  case  only  to  cor- 
roborate the  New  Testament.  Thus  not  only  has  Luke  long  ago 
been  proved  accurate  in  calling  the  ruler  of  Cyprus  a  "proconsul," 
but  Mr.  Cesnola  has  lately  brought  to  light  a  Cyprian  inscription 
which  mentions  that  same  Proconsul  Paulus  whom  Luke  repre- 
sents Paul  as  finding  on  the  island. — (Cyprus,  p.  425.)  Let  us 
but  consider  the  unspeakable  complication  of  the  political  history 
of  those  times ; — the  frequent  changes  of  provinces  from  senatorial 
to  imperial  and  ^;^ce  versa, — the  many  alterations  of  boundaries  and 
vacillations  of  relation  to  the  central  power  at  Rome, — which 
made  it  the  most  complicated  period  the  world  has  ever  seen,  and 
renders  it  the  most  dangerous  ground  possible  for  a  forger  to  enter 
^^pon  • — and  how  impossible  is  it  to  suppose  that  a  book  whose  every 
most  incidental  notice  of  historical  circumstances  is  found  after  most 
searching  criticism  to  be  minutely  correct, — which  has  threaded  all 
this  labyrinth  with  firm  and  unfaltering  step, — was  the  work  of 
unlearned  forgers,  writing  some  hundred  years  after  the  facts  they 
record.  Confessedly  accurate  Roman  historians  have  not  escaped 
error  here  j  even  Tacitus  himself  has  slipped.  *     To  think  that  a 

^Cf.  Annal  xi:  23. 


40  INAUGUEAL   ADDRESS   OF 


second  ceatiiry  forger  could  have  walked  scathless  among  all  the 
pitfalls  that  gaped  around  him,  is  like  believing  a  blind  man  could 
thread  a  row  of  a  hundred  cambric  needles  at  a  thrust.  If  we 
merely  apply  the  doctrine  of  probabilities  to  the  accuracy  of  these 
New  Testament  writers  they  are  proved  to  be  the  work  of  eye- 
witnesses and  wholly  authentic* 

We  can,  then,  at  the  end,  but  repeat  the  statement  with  which 
we  began  :  Modern  negative  criticism  neither  on  internal  nor  on 
external  grounds  has  been  able  to  throw  any  doubt  on  the  authen- 
ticity of  a  single  book  of  our  New  Testament.  Their  authen- 
ticity, accuracy  and  honesty  are  super-vindicated  by  every  new  in- 
vestigation. They  are  thus  proved  to  be  the  productions  of  sober, 
honest,  accurate  men  ;  they  claim  verbal  inspiration  ;  their  claim 
was  allowed  by  the  contemporary  church.  So  far  modern  criticism 
has  gone  step  by  step  with  traditional  faith.  There  remains  but 
one  critical  ground  on  which  the  doctrine  we  are  considering  can 
be  disputed.  Do  these  books  in  their  internal  character  negative 
their  claim  ?  Are  the  phenomena  of  the  writings  in  conflict  with 
the  claim  they  put  forth?  We  must,  then,  in  conclusion  consider 
this  last  refuge  of  objection. 

2.  Much  has  been  already  said  incidentally  which  bears  on 
this  point ;  but  something  more  is  needed.  An  amount  of  accu- 
racy which  will  triumphantly  prove  a  book  to  be  genuine  and 
surely  authentic,  careful  and  honest,  may  fall  short  of  proving  it 
to  be  the  very  word  of  God.  The  question  now  before  us  is  : 
granting  the  books  to  be  in  the  main  accurate,  are  they  found  on 
the  application  of  a  searching  criticism  to  bear  such  a  character  as 
will  throw  destructive  objection  in  the  way  of  the  dogma  that  they 
are  verbally  from  God  ?  This  inquiry  opens  a  broad — almost 
illimitable — field,  utterly  impossible  to  fully  treat  here.  It  may 
be  narrowed  somewhat,  however,  by  a  few  natural  observations. 
(1).  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  we  are  not  defending  a  mechanical 
theory  of  inspiration.    Every  word  of  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God 

*  See  this  slightly  touchtnl  on  by  Dr.  Peabody,  Princeton  Rev.,  March,  1880. 


PROF.    BENJ.    B.    WARFIELD.  41 


according  to  the  doctrine  we  are  discussing  ;  but  also  and  just  as 
truly,  every  word  is  the  word  of  a  man.  This  at  once  sets  aside  as 
irrelevant  a  large  number  of  the  objections  usually  brought  from 
the  phenomena  of  the  New  Testament  against  its  verbal  inspira- 
tion. No  finding  of  traces  of  human  influence  in  the  style,  word- 
ing or  forms  of  statement  or  argumentation  touches  the  question. 
The  book  is  throughout  the  work  of  human  writers  and  is  filled 
with  the  signs  of  iheir  handiwork.  This  we  admit  on  the  thresh- 
hold  ;  we  ask  what  is  found  inconsistent  with  its  absolute  accu- 
racy and  truth.  (2).  It  is  to  be  remembered,  again,  that  no  objec- 
tion touches  the  question,  that  is  obtained  by  pressing  the  pri- 
mary sense  of  phrases  or  idioms.  These  are  often  false ;  but  they 
are  a  necessary  part  of  human  speech.  And  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
using  human  speech,  used  it  as  Re  found  it.  It  cannot  be  argued 
then  that  the  Holy  Spirit  could  not  speak  of  the  sun  setting,  or 
call  the  Roman  world  ^'  the  whole  world.''  The  current  sense  of 
a  phrase  is  alone  to  be  considered  ;  and  if  men  so  spoke  and  were 
understood  correctly  in  so  speaking  the  Holy  Ghost,  speaking  their 
speech  would  aloo  so  speak.  No  objection  then  is  in  point  which 
turns  on  a  pressure  of  language,  inspiration  is  a  means  to  an  end 
and  not  an  end  in  itself;  if  the  truth  is  conveyed  accurately  to  the 
ear  that  listens  to  it,  its  full  end  is  obtained.  (3).  And  we  must 
remember  again  that  no  objection  is  valid  which  is  gained  by  over- 
looking the  prime  question  of  the  intentions  and  professions  of  the 
writer.  Inspiration,  securing  absolute  truth,  secures  that  the  writer 
shall  do  what  he  professes  to  do  ;  not  what  he  does  not  profess. 
If  the  author  does  not  profess  to  be  quoting  the  Old  Testament 
verbatim, — unless  it  can  be  proved  that  he  professes  to  give  the 
ipsissima  verba, — then  no  objection  arises  against  his  verbal  inspi- 
ration from  the  fact  that  he  does  not  give  the  exact  words.  If  an 
author  does  not  profess  to  report  the  exact  words  of  a  discourse  or 
a  document — if  he  professes  to  give,  or  it  is  enough  for  his  pur- 
poses to  give,  an  abstract  or  general  account  of  the  sense  or  the 
wording,  as  the  case   may  be, — then  it  is   not  opposed  to  his  claim 


42  INAUGURAL    ADDRESS    OF 


to  inspiration  that  he  does  not  give  the  exact  words.  This  remark 
sets  aside  a  vast  number  of  objections  brought  against  verbal  in- 
spiration by  men  who  seem  to  fancy  that  the  doctrine  supposes 
men  to  be  false  instead  of  true  to  their  professed  or  implied  inten- 
tion. It  sets  aside^  for  instance  all  objection  against  the  verbal  in- 
spiration of  the  Gospels,  drawn  from  the  diversity  of  their  accounts 
of  words  spoken  by  Christ  or  others,  written  over  the  cross,  &c. 
It  sets  aside  also  all  objection  raised  from  the  freedom  with  which 
the  Old  Testament  is  quoted,  so  long  as  it  cannot  be  proved  that 
the  jN^ew  Testament  writers  quote  the  Old  Testament  in  a  different 
sense  from  that  in  which  it  was  written,  in  cases  where  the  use  of 
the  quotation  turns  on  this  change  of  sense.  This  cannot  be 
proved  in  a  single  case. 

The  great  majority  of  the  usual  objections  brought  against  the 
verbal  inspiration  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  from  their  phenomena, 
being  thus  set  aside,  the  way  is  open  to  remarking  further,  that  no 
single  argument  can  be  brought  from  this  source  against  the 
church  doctrine  which  does  not  begin  by  proving  an  error  in  state- 
ment or  contradiction  in  doctrine  or  fact  to  exist  in  these  sacred 
pages.  I  say,  that  does  not  begin  by  proving  this.  For  if  the 
inaccuracies  are  apparent  only, — if  they  are  not  indubitably  in- 
accuracies,— they  do  not  raise  the  slightest  presumption  against  the 
full,  verbal  inspiration  of  the  book.  Have  such  errors  been  pointed 
out  ?  That  seems  the  sole  question  before  us  now.  And  any 
sober  criticism  must  answer  categorically  to  it.  No  !  It  is  not 
enough  to  point  to  passages  difficult  to  harmonize ;  they  cannot 
militate  against  verbal  inspiration  unless  it  is  not  only  impossible 
for  us  to  harmonize  them,  but  also  unless  they  are  of  such  a  character 
that  they  are  clearly  contradictory,  so  that  if  one  be  true  the  other 
cannot  by  any  possibility  be  true.  No  such  case  has  as  yet  been 
pointed  out.  Why  should  the  New  Testament  harmonics  be  dealt 
with  on  other  principles  than  those  which  govern  men  in  dealing 
with  like  cases  among  profane  writers?  There,  it  is  a  first  princi- 
ple of  historical  science  that  any  solution  which  affords  a  possible 


PROF.    BENJ.    B.  WARFIELD.  43 


method  of  harmonizing  any  two  statements  is  preferal)le  to  the 
assumption  of  inaccuracy  or  error — whetlier  tliosc  statements  are 
found  in  the  same  or  different  writers.  To  act  on  any  other  basis,  it  is 
clearly  acknowledged,  is  to  assume,  not  prove,  error.  We  ask  only 
that  this  recognized  principle  be  applied  to  the  New  Testament. 
Who  believes  that  the  historians  who  record  the  date  of  Alexan- 
der's death — some  giving  the  28th,  some  the  30th  of  the  month- 
are  in  contradiction?*  And  if  means  can  be  found  to  harmonize 
them,  why  should  not  like  cases  in  the  New  Testament  be  dealt 
with  on  like  principles?  If  the  New  Testament  writers  are  held 
to  be  independent  and  accurate  writers, — as  they  are  by  both  par- 
ties in  this  part  of  our  argument, — this  is  the  only  rational  rule  to 
apply  to  their  writings  ;  and  the  application  of  it  removes  every 
argument  against  verbal  inspiration  drawn  from  assumed  dishar- 
mony.    Not  a  single  case  of  disharmony  can  be  proved. 

The  same  principle  and  with  the  same  results,  may  be  applied 
to  the  cases  wherein  it  is  claimed  that  the  New  Testament  is 
in  disharmony  with  the  profane  writers  of  the  times,  or  other  con- 
temporary historical  sources.  But  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  do  so. 
At  the  most,  only  three  cases  of  even  possible  errors  in  this  sphere 
can  be  now  even  plausibly  claimed  :  the  statements  regarding  the 
taxing  under  Quirinius,  the  revolt  under  Theudas,  and  the  lord- 
ship of  Aretas  over  Damascus.  But  Zumpt^s  proof  that  Quirinius 
was  twice  governor  of  Syria,  the  first  time  just  after  our  Lord's 
birth,  sets  the  first  of  these  aside ;  whereas  the  other  two,  while 
not  corroborated  by  distinct  statements  from  other  sources,  vet  are  not 
excluded  either.  Room  is  found  for  the  insignificant  revolt  of  this 
Theudas — who  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  his  later  and  more  im- 
portant namesake — in  Josej)hus'  statement  that  at  this  time  there 
were  ^^  ten  thousand"  revolts  not  mentioned  by  him.  And  the 
lordship  of  Aretas  over  Damascus  is  rendered  very  probable  by 
what  we  know  from  other  sources  of  the  posture  of  affairs  in  that 
region,  as  well  as  by  the  significant  absence  of  Roman-Damascene 

*  For  methods  by  wliich  these  are  harmonizod,  see  Leo  "  Insjiiration,"  pat^e  ""io. 


44  INAUGURAL    ADDRESS    OF 


coinage  for  just  this  period.  Even  were  the  New  Testament 
w^riters  in  direct  conflict  in  these  or  in  other  statements,  with  pro- 
fane sources,  it  would  still  not  be  proven  that  the  New  Testament 
was  in  error.  There  would  still  be  an  equal  chance,  to  say  the 
least  (much  too  little  as  it  is),  that  the  other  sources  were  in  error. 
But  it  is  never  in  .^uch  conflict ;  and,  therefore,  cannot  be  charged 
with  having  fallen  into  historical  error,  unless  we  are  prepared  to 
hold  that  the  New  Testament  writers  are  not  to  be  believed  in  any 
statement  which  cannot  be  independently  of  it  proved  true ;  in 
other  words,  unless  it  be  assumed  beforehand  to  be  untrustworthy. 
This,  again,  is  to  assume,  not  prove  error.  Not  a  single  case  of 
error  can  be  proved. 

We  cannot  stop  to  even  mention  the  fact  that  no  doctrinal  con- 
tradictions, or  scientific  errors  can  be  proved.  The  case  stands  or 
falls  confessedly  on  the  one  question:  Are  the  New  Testament 
writers  contradictory  to  each  other  or  to  other  sources  o^*  informa- 
tion in  their  record  of  historical  or  geographical  facts?  This  settled, 
indubitably  all  is  settled.  We  repeat,  then,  that  all  the  fierce  light  of 
criticism  which  has  so  long  been  beating  upon  their  open  pages  has  not 
yet  been  able  to  settle  one  indubitable  error  on  the  New  Testament 
writers.  This  being  so,  no  argument  against  their  claim  to  write 
under  a  verbal  inspiration  from  God  can  be  drawn  from  the  phe- 
nomena of  their  writings.  No  phenomena  can  be  pled  against 
verbal  inspiration  except  errors, — no  error  can  be  proved  to  exist 
within  the  sacred  pages  ;  that  is  the  argument  in  a  nut-shell.  Such 
being  the  result  of  the  strife  which  has  raged  all  along  the  line 
for  decades  of  years,  it  cannot  be  presumptuous  to  formulate  our 
conclusion  here  as  boldly  as  after  the  former  heads  of  discourse  : — 
Modern  criticism  has  absolutely  no  valid  argument  to  bring 
against  the  church  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration,  drawn  from  the 
phenomena  of  Scripture.     This  seems  indubitably  true. 

It  is,  indeed,  well  for  Christianity  that  it  is.     For,  if  the  phe- 
nomena of  the  writings  were  such  as  to   negative  their  distinct 
claim  to  full   inspiration,  we  cannot  conceal  from  ourselves  that 


PROF.    BEN  J.    P..    WAEFJET.D.  4r> 


much  more  than  their  verbal  inspiration  would  have  to  be  o-iven 
up.  If  the  sacred  writers  were  not  trustworthy  in  such  a  witness- 
bearing,  where  would  they  be  trustworthy?  If  tliey,  by  their 
])erformance,  disproved  their  own  assertions,  it  is  ])lain  that  not 
only  would  these  assertions  be  thus  i)roven  false,  but,  also,  by  tlic 
same  stroke  the  makers  of  the  assertions  convicted  of  either  fanati- 
cism or  dishonesty.  It  seems  very  evident,  tlien,  that  there  is  no 
standing  ground  between  the  two  theories  of  full  verbal  inspira- 
tion and  no  inspiration  at  all.  Gaussen  is  consistent ;  Strauss  is 
consistent :  but  those  who  try  to  stand  between  !  It  is  by  a 
divinely  permitted  inconsistency  that  they  can  stand  at  all.  Let 
us  know  our  position.  If  the  j^ew  Testament,  claiming  full  in- 
spiration, did  exhibit  such  internal  characteristics  as  should  set 
aside  this  claim,  it  would  not  be  a  trustworthy  guide  to  salvation. 
But  on  the  contrary,  since  all  the  efforts  of  the  enemies  of 
Christianity — eager  to  discover  error  by  which  they  might  convict 
the  precious  word  of  life  of  falsehood — have  proved  utterly  vain, 
the  Scriptures  stand  before  us  authenticated  as  from  God.  They 
are,  then,  just  what  they  profess  to  be  ;  and  criticism  only  secures 
to  them  the  more  firmly  the  position  they  claim.  Claiming  to  be 
verbally  inspired,  that  claim  was  allowed  by  the  church  which  re- 
ceived them, — their  writers  approve  themselves  sol)er  and  honest 
men,  and  evince  the  truth  of  their  claim,  by  the  wonder  of  their 
performance.  So,  then,  gathering  all  that  we  have  attempted  to 
say  into  one  point,  we  may  say  that  modern  biblical  criticism  has 
nothing  valid  to  urge  against  the  church  doctrine  of  verbal  inspira- 
tion, but  that  on  the  contrary  it  puts  that  doctrine  on  a  new  and 
firmer  basis  and  secures  to  the  church  Scriptures  which  are  truly 
divine.  Thus,  although  nothing  has  been  urged  formally  as  a 
proof  of  the  doctrine,  we  have  arrived  at  such  results  as  amount 
to  a  proof  of  it.  If  the  sacred  Avriters  clearly  claim  verbal  in- 
spiral  ion  and  every  phenomenon  supports  that  claim,  and  all  criti- 
cal objections  br  eak  down  by  their  own  weight,  how  can  we  escape 
admitting  its  truth?     What  further  proof  do  we  need? 


46  INAUGURAL   ADDRESS   OF 


With  this  conclusion  I  may  fitly  close.  But  how  can  I  close 
without  expression  of  thanks  to  Him  who  has  so  loved  us  as  to 
give  us  so  pure  a  record  of  his  will, — God-given  in  all  its  parts, 
even  though  cast  in  the  forms  of  human  speech, — infallible  in  all 
its  statements, — divine  even  to  its  smallest  particle !  I  am  far 
from  contending  that  without  such  an  inspiration  there  could  be  no 
Christianity.  Without  any  inspiration  we  could  have  had  Chris- 
tianity; yea,  and  men  could  still  have  heard  the  truth,  and  through 
it  been  awakened,  and  justified,  and  sanctified  and  glorified.  The 
verities  of  our  faith  would  remain  historically  proven  true  to  us — so 
bountiful  has  God  been  in  his  fostering  care — even  had  we  no 
Bible ;  and  through  those  verities,  salvation,  But  to  what  un- 
certainties and  doubts  would  we  be  the  prey  ! — to  what  errors, 
constantly  begetting  worse  errors,  exposed  ! — to  what  refuges,  all 
of  them  refuges  of  lies,  driven  !  Look  but  at  those  who  have  lost 
the  knowledge  of  this  infallible  guide  :  see  them  evincing  man's 
most  pressing  need  by  inventing  for  themselves  an  infallible 
church,  or  even  an  infallible  Pope.  Revelation  is  but  half  reve- 
lation unless  it  be  infallibly  communicated  ;  it  is  but  half  commu- 
nicated unless  it  be  infallibly  recorded.  The  heathen  in  their 
blindness  are  our  witnesses  of  Avhat  becomes  of  an  unrecorded 
revelation.  Let  us  bless  God,  then,  for  his  inspired  word  !  And 
may  he  grant  that  we  may  always  cherish,  love  and  venerate  it, 
and  conform  all  our  life  and  thinking  to  it !  So  may  we  find 
safety  for  our  feet,  and  peaceful  security  for  our  souls. 


Date  Due 

I 

i 

1 

[ 

1 
1 
1 

f) 

1 

.1 
it 

I 


PA/\ 


ctyilord 


PAMPHLET  BINDER 

Syracuse,  N.   Y. 
Stockton,  Calif. 


Princeton  Theologica 


Seminary  Libraries 


012  01252  0179 


mmM 


ii>^^ 


'!'•■  . »- 


^-^. 


>■' 


